Planning Applications Report Planning Committee 07 August 2008

Planning Applications Report

Planning Committee

07 August 2008

Bolton Council has approved a Guide to Good Practice for Members and Officers Involved in the Planning Process. Appendix 1 of the Guide sets down guidance on what should be included in Officer Reports to Committee on planning applications. This Report is written in accordance with that guidance. Copies of the Guide to Good Practice are available from the Development and Regeneration Department, Town Hall, Bolton.

Bolton Council also has a Code of Practice for publicising planning applications and other submissions for approval. As part of this Code, neighbour notification letters will have been sent to all owners and occupiers whose premises adjoin the site of these applications. In residential areas, or in areas where there are dwellings in the vicinity of these sites, letters will also have been sent to all owners and occupiers of residential land or premises, which directly overlook a proposed development.

The plans in this report have been annotated with the symbol ● to show where a letter of objection has been received from an owner or occupier of a property shown on the Report Plan.

The plans in this report have been annotated with the symbol S to show where a letter of support has been received from an owner or occupier of a property shown on the Report Plan.

The plans in the report are for location only and are not to scale. The application site will generally be in the centre of the plan edged with a bold line.

The following abbreviations are used within this report: -

UDP The adopted Unitary Development Plan 2005 RSS Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West of England PCPN A Bolton Council Planning Control Policy Note PPG Department of Communities and Local Government Planning Policy Guidance Note MPG Department of Communities and Local GovernmentMinerals Planning Guidance Note SPG Bolton Council Supplementary Planning Guidance PPS Department of Communities and Local Government Planning Policy Statement TPO Tree Preservation Order EA Environment Agency SBI Site of Biological Importance SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest GMEU The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit

The background documents for this Report are the respective planning application documents which can be found at:- www.bolton.gov.uk/planapps

2 INDEX

Ref. No Page Item Ward Location

80353/08 5 1 BMET 3 CARRON GROVE, BOLTON, BL2 6LR

80274/08 11 2 BMET LAND AT BAILEY LANE, BAILEY LANE, BOLTON

80338/08 19 3 CROM 26 ADRIAN ROAD, BOLTON, BL1 3LG

80411/08 25 4 CROM 526 BLACKBURN ROAD, BOLTON, BL1 8NW

80487/08 33 5 GRLE SKATEPARK AT DAWES STREET, BOLTON, BL3 6AQ

80188/08 43 6 HELO 15A RYDAL ROAD, BOLTON, BL1 5LQ

79693/08 55 7 HOBL TESCO SUPERSTORE, MANSELL WAY, HORWICH, BOLTON, BL6 6JS

80089/08 67 8 HOBL J. DICKINSON & SONS (HORWICH) LTD, RIVINGTON VIEW BUSINESS PARK, STATION ROAD, BLACKROD, BOLTON, BL6 5GR

80303/08 101 9 HOBL BARN AND STABLES OPPOSITE BLACKROD PRIMARY SCHOOL, MANCHESTER ROAD, BLACKROD, BOLTON

80055/08 109 10 HONE LOW WOOD, HIGH BANK LANE, LOSTOCK, BOLTON

80469/08 133 11 HULT LAND AT SALFORD ROAD WEST, BOLTON

80194/08 143 12 WNCM WINGATES NURSING HOME, 95 CHORLEY ROAD, WESTHOUGHTON, BOLTON, BL5 3PG

4 Date of Meeting: 07 August 2008 Item Number: 1

Application Reference: 80353/08

Type of Application: Full Planning Application Registration Date: 18/06/2008 Decision Due By: 13/08/2008 Responsible Jeanette Isherwood Officer:

Location: 3 CARRON GROVE, BOLTON, BL2 6LR

Proposal: ERECTION OF DORMER EXTENSION TO FRONT AND REAR AND CONSERVATORY AT REAR

Ward: Breightmet

Applicant: Mr Holden Agent : Hindley

Officers Report

Proposal The application proposes the erection of dormers to the front and rear elevation together with a rear conservatory 3 metres long and 3.8 metres wide. This application is brought before Committee as the applicant is a member of staff in the Development & Regeneration Department.

Site Characteristics This is a detached bungalow situated near the entrance to the cul-de-sac. The property has an existing single dormer to the front elevation. The immediate character of the area is one of dormers of varying size, design and materials.

Policy Unitary Development Plan (2005) D1/2 Design

Planning Control Policy Notes: No.2 Space Around Dwellings No.3 House Extensions

Technical Consultations None necessary.

Representations Letters:- none received.

5 Analysis Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications to be determined in accordance with policies in the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Applications which are not in accordance with Development Plan policies should be refused unless material considerations justify granting permission.

Similarly, proposals which accord with Development Plan policies should be approved unless there are material considerations which would justify a refusal of permission.

It is therefore necessary to decide whether this proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and then take account of other material considerations.

Planning Control Policy Note No 3 – House Extensions states that dormers on front and important elevations should not result in the proposed dormer occupying more than one quarter of the roof plane which faces a highway or is at a prominent location with high visibility in the street scene. On rear elevations the dormer should not exceed more than two thirds of the area of the rear half of the roof. The rear elevation is less prominent and therefore a larger dormer may be acceptable as it would not have such a great impact on the character and visual appearance of the building and its setting.

The proposed dormers are in excess of this policy. The rear dormer will exceed this policy by approximately 15% and the front dormer by approximately 20%. However there are identical dormers in Carron Grove and the surrounding streets that set a built context and therefore limit their impact.

Planning Control Policy Note No 3 - House Extensions states that conservatories actually on the party boundary will only be acceptable if they are no greater than 3.7 metres in length when measured along the line of the party boundary.

This conservatory is within these policy limits and is therefore considered acceptable.

The application is considered acceptable and therefore recommended for approval.

Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions

Recommended Conditions and/or Reasons

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

Reason

Required to be imposed pursuant to section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The facing materials to be used for the external walls shall match the colour, texture and size of

6 those of the existing building and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason

To ensure the development fits in visually with the existing building and safeguards the character and visual appearance of the locality.

3. The dormer front(s) and cheeks shall be clad in tiles to match those of the existing roof.

Reason

To ensure the development fits in visually with the existing building and safeguards the character and visual appearance of the locality.

8 9 10 Date of Meeting: 07 August 2008 Item Number: 2

Application Reference: 80274/08

Type of Application: Outline Planning Permission Registration Date: 16/06/2008 Decision Due By: 11/08/2008 Responsible Oliver West Officer:

Location: LAND AT BAILEY LANE, BAILEY LANE, BOLTON

Proposal: OUTLINE APPLICATION OF THE ERECTION OF 3 NO TOWN HOUSES AND ASSOCIATED PARKING (ACCESS, LAYOUT AND SCALE DETAILS ONLY)

Ward: Breightmet

Applicant: Camerons Agent : Edge Architects

Officers Report

Proposal The application seeks outline permission for 3 houses on a greenfield site.

Site Characteristics The land is a wooded naturalised area surrounded by the grounds of residential properties. It forms part of a larger area of woodland, gardens and informal undergrowth. The site is located within the urban area and forms an unusual break in the suburban landscape.

Policy Planning Policy Statement 3 - Housing.

Regional Spatial Strategy

Unitary Development Plan 2005: N5 Landscape Features, N7 Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows, N8 Protected Trees, D1, D2 Design, D3 Landscaping, A1 Accessibility, A5 Road Network, A6 Car Parking Standards, H3 Housing Applications, H2 Housing Commitments; H5 Net Site Density,

11 EM4 Contaminated Land.

Planning Control Policy Notes: No.2 - Space Around Dwellings, No.3 - House Extensions, No.7 - Trees: Protection and Planting in New Developments, No.10 - Planning Out Crime, No.21 - Highways Considerations.

History An outline planning application for 3 houses was refused in 2005 due to the land being greenfield, and inadequate highway access (71056/05).

Planning permission was granted for a detached bungalow and detached garage in 1981 (17266/81).

Technical Consultations Bolton Council - Highway Engineers:- have agreed highway works to the junction with Red Lane and have no objections if this is implemented.

Bolton Council - Environmental Health Officers:- a Phase 1 report is required.

Bolton Council - Greenspace Officers:- have no objections and refer to trees officer's comments.

Bolton Council - Trees & Woodland Officers:- The proposed scheme is likely to result in the loss or damage of all the trees on the site and as such the scheme in its current format could not be supported.

Representations Letters:- 1 letter of objection has been received from a neighbour citing inadequate highway access and concern for the road safety of school children. 2 letters of support have been received from neighbours citing anti-social behaviour on the site.

Elected Members:- Cllr John Byrne has requested the application is dealt with by Committee with an advance site visit.

Analysis Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications to be determined in accordance with policies in the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Applications which are not in accordance with Development Plan policies should be refused unless material considerations justify granting permission.

Similarly, proposals which accord with Development Plan policies should be approved unless there are material considerations which would justify a refusal of permission.

It is therefore necessary to decide whether this proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and then take account of other material considerations.

The main impacts of the proposal are:-

* impact on Greenfield land * impact on urban design * impact on highways and access * impact on trees

Impact on Greenfield Land This proposal seeks permission to build housing on a wooded greenfield site. The site was previously used as a tennis court but has long ago returned to a natural state and does not form part of a residential curtilage. The proposal does not meet policy objectives.

PPS3 - "Housing" instructs that previously developed sites (or buildings for re-use or conversion) should be developed before greenfield sites. In order to promote more sustainable patterns of development PPS3 makes it clear that the focus for additional housing should be existing towns and urban areas. It is important that new housing is located where it is accessible to jobs, shops and services by modes of transport other than the car. PPS3 also promotes quality in new residential development, and explains that proposals should make efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the environment. New housing should not be viewed in isolation, but its design and layout must be informed by the wider context.

The North West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) sets out a spatial development framework for our region which seeks to promote urban renaissance and more particularly inner urban areas. Policy DP1 establishes a sequential approach to development which prioritises the re-use of existing buildings, then the use of previously developed land, and places greenfield land at the end of the sequence. Emphasis is therefore placed on the effective use of previously developed urban land in order to optimise regeneration opportunities. This approach is consistent with PPS3.

Policy H3 of the 2005 UDP establishes the Council's approach to determining planning applications for housing based on sustainable development principles. For a greenfield site to be considered the applicant must clearly demonstrate that previously developed land elsewhere in the Borough cannot be developed for housing; "if the proposed site has not been previously developed it can be clearly demonstrated that previously developed sites elsewhere in the Borough are so physically and environmentally constrained that they cannot be developed for housing"

It is understood that the site was originally part of the curtilage of No.1 Breightmet Hill and was sold in 2003. It would not have been suitable for development even had it remained part of the curtilage due to the generous and semi-natural nature of its surroundings. PPS3 makes clear that gardens are not necessarily suitable sites for development depending on their context.

13 The site is greenfield and as such the proposal is clearly contrary to UDP Policy H3, PPS3 and RSS. The site has a large number of mature protected trees present on the site and has a significant amenity value.

No information has been submitted with regard to potential ground contamination and the proposal is therefore contrary to policy EM4.

Planning permission was granted for a detached bungalow and detached garage in 1981. This does not create a precedent for development as the permission is no longer valid and national and local policy regarding greenfield development has changed significantly since 1981 in favour of protecting greenfield land and promoting regeneration elsewhere.

Impact on urban design The proposal seeks outline permission only for 3 townhouses and associated parking (access, layout and scale). 3 houses is a suitable number of dwellings for a site of this size, notwithstanding the trees and greenfield status. However, there is excessive hard surfacing with a poorly design road layout which makes a wasteful use of space. The layout and parking should be altered before any planning permission is granted. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy D2.

Impact on highways and access The Council's highways officers have agreed a revised junction at Red Lane which, if implemented, will create an adequate highway access. They have no further objections. A neighbour has objected on the grounds of highway safety, particularly with regard to the use of Bailey Lane by pupils going to Withins School, but the proposed improvements would adequately address this problem. The proposal as amended would therefore meet policy A5.

Impact on Trees The site and its surroundings are heavily wooded in character and make a good contribution to the area by providing a break in the suburban urban development.

The site includes a number of protected large mature trees. The proposed access is considerably wider than had been expected from pre-application discussions and it is unlikely that the trees on the frontage could be retained. Further detail is required on the tree root protection zones and ensuring that the driveway is clear of trees. Not all the trees on the frontage are shown on the plans and more than the two trees shown should be retained with development.

The house closest to the frontage has insufficient clearance to the frontage tree. The plot will be heavily shaded and there would be pressure by future owners for the removal of this tree. The parking spaces situated beneath the canopy of the mature beech tree on the southern boundary are likely to impact on the health of this tree and improved clearance would be required. It has not been verified that the buildings are clear of the Tree Root Protection Zone and this should be provided by the developer to show that the layout is feasible.

No tree survey has been submitted which would help to judge the impact on the trees.

The scheme is likely to result in the loss or damage of all the trees on the site and as such the scheme in its current format could not be supported as it conflicts with policies N7 and N8.

Value Added to and by the Development The proposal would contribute to the supply of housing in the area.

Conclusion The proposal will result in the loss of greenfield land, all trees, and be harmful to regeneration. It is clearly contrary to national, regional and local policies and should be refused.

Recommendation: Refuse

Recommended Conditions and/or Reasons

1. The proposal would result in the development of a Greenfield site and would be contrary to the sequential approach to development in Policy H3 of Bolton's Unitary Development Plan and Policy DP1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West.

2. The proposed development would be contrary to Policies N7 and N8 of Bolton's Unitary Development Plan in that it would result in the unacceptable loss of trees from the site, to the detriment of the character, appearance and amenity of the application site and the area in which it is set.

3. The proposal represents an over development of the site which would be harmful to the character of the site and surrounding locality and is thus contrary to Policy D2 of Bolton's Unitary Development Plan.

4. Insufficient information has been provided by the applicant particularly with regard to trees and potential ground contamination to enable the proposal to be properly judged against the policies N7, N8 and EM4 of Bolton's Unitary Development Plan.

16 17 18 Date of Meeting: 07 August 2008 Item Number: 3

Application Reference: 80338/08

Type of Application: Full Planning Application Registration Date: 16/06/2008 Decision Due By: 11/08/2008 Responsible Martin Mansell Officer:

Location: 26 ADRIAN ROAD, BOLTON, BL1 3LG

Proposal: RETENTION OF FLAT ROOF TO YARD AREA AT SIDE

Ward: Crompton

Applicant: Mr R Mistry Agent : Mr S Jackson

Officers Report

Background Members deferred the application to enable them to visit the site

Proposal The Applicant seeks consent for the retention of a flat roof constructed over an existing yard at the side of an existing retail property, 26 Adrian Road.

The roof is constructed from pre-chipped felt with lead flashings to the existing wall and uPVC woodgrain trim to the eaves. Approximately 1 or 2 courses of brick have been removed from the yard wall to create a level height for the roof.

The application also initially sought consent for the installation of a roller shutter to the front door to the space covered by the new roof. The Applicant has agreed to delete this element from the scheme, However, there are existing solid metal shutters on both the existing shopfront and the side gate to the rear yard.

The works were carried out without the benefit of planning permission and the application to retain the roof is the result of action by the Council's Planning Enforcement Officers.

Site Characteristics The site is a retail shop at the end of a short terrace between Wilmot Street and Somerville Street. The last lawful use seems to be Use Class A1 in that it sold gift wrapping materials. The yard measures approximately 20m2.

The character of the immediately surrounding areas is generally residential, interspersed with various single property shop units and a garage. To the north and east lies Halliwell Road, which is more commercial in character.

Policy UDP Policies D2 Design, EM2 Incompatible Uses

PCPN21 Highways Considerations

History The site has no record of previous planning applications.

Technical Consultations Bolton Council - Highway Engineers:- no highway objections.

Representations Petitions:- a petition of objection has been received, signed by the occupants of 18 nearby residential properties on Adrian Road, Wilmot Street and Thurstane Street. The grounds of objection are:-

• the flat roof makes the building look industrial in appearance • a roller shutter would make the building appear even more industrial • children are climbing on the flat roof

Applications which are not in accordance with Development Plan policies should be refused unless material considerations justify granting permission.

Similarly, proposals which accord with Development Plan policies should be approved unless there are material considerations which would justify a refusal of permission.

It is therefore necessary to decide whether this proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and then take account of other material considerations.

The main impact of the proposal is:-

* impact on the character and appearance of the area

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area UDP Policy D2 design seeks to ensure good design. Policy EM2 seeks to avoid incompatible uses.

The site benefits from a long-standing existing retail use. No new land use would be introduced. The yard could have been used for storage ancillary to the main retail use, and the roof covering will not affect this right.

20 For this reason, the proposal should be assessed solely in terms of the visual appearance of the new flat roof.

Council’s policy on house extensions is not directly related to this application however the principles it sets should be applied in this case and whilst it generally discourages flat-roofed structures, each case should be judged on it's own merits and it is considered that the appearance of the roof is not incompatible with its surroundings. The materials visually consistent with the general pattern of development and do not appear prominent in the street scene. Whilst a pitched roof may be preferable, a flat roof is not considered to be unacceptable in this location.

The issue of children climbing on the roof could not reasonably support a refusal and once the building is re-occupied by a retail use, such activities ought to cease.

The Applicant has agreed to delete the proposed front roller shutter on the basis that visually it is considered inappropriate in this location.

Conclusion Following the deletion from the scheme of the proposed roller shutter, the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant policy, D2 Design, and is recommended for approval.

Recommendation: Approve without condition

21 22 23 24 Date of Meeting: 07 August 2008 Item Number: 4

Application Reference: 80411/08

Type of Application: Full Planning Application Registration Date: 23/06/2008 Decision Due By: 18/08/2008 Responsible Martin Mansell Officer:

Location: 526 BLACKBURN ROAD, BOLTON, BL1 8NW

Proposal: CHANGE OF USE TO HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY/ICE CREAM PARLOUR (CLASS A5)

Ward: Crompton

Applicant: Mr Thagia Agent :

Officers Report

Proposal Consent is sought for the change of use of the application premises, an A1 retail shop, to a hot food takeaway and ice cream parlour, Use Class A5. A fume extraction system is shown on the side gable elevation.

Hours of opening are proposed as from 18:30hrs to 02:00hrs, seven days per week.

Site Characteristics The site is a typical mid-terrace shop within the Astley Bridge Local Shopping Centre. It lies on a stretch of Blackburn Road between the ring road and Watersmeeting Way. There are a range of commercial uses in the area, including shops, takeaways and restaurants. On the opposite side of the road is the Asda Superstore. Behind the site are the residential properties of Holland Street.

There is residential accommodation (in the form of flats) above both the application site and properties immediately adjacent to the north, 528 Blackburn Road.

Policy PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development

RSS13 Regional Spatial Strategy (North West)

UDP Policies S7 Hot Food Takeaways, A5 Roads, Paths, Parking and Servicing, EM2 Incompatible Uses, EM3 Pollution

25 PCPN9 The Location of Restaurant, Bars, Cafes and Hot Food Takeaways in Urban Locations, PCPN21 Highways Considerations

History Planning permission was granted in 2003 for change of use from residential to retail (66117/03)

Planning permission was granted in 1995 for change of use from residential to office (46842/95)

Planning permission was refused in 1993 for change of use from residential to hot food takeaway. The reasons for refusal were increased on-street parking on Blackburn Road leading to highway safety concerns, together with harm to the living conditions of nearby residents due to noise and disturbance (43856/93)

Technical Consultations Bolton Council - Highway Engineers:- to be reported at the meeting.

Bolton Council - Environmental Health Officers:- to be reported at the meeting.

Representations Letters:- five representations of objection have been made from four commercial properties on this stretch of Blackburn Road - "Michael Robert Jewellers" at No. 516, "Landers Recruitment" at No. 522, "Shubiz" at No. 514 and "Body Perfect" adjacent at No. 524.

• nearby commercial properties are female orientated and customers are likely to be intimidated • takeaways attract gangs • litter at front, food bins at back - both attracting vermin • takeaway would be out of character • the area and the proposal have been misrepresented by the Applicant • this type of business is well-catered for already • parking spaces are in short supply • cooking fumes would be bad for business • bins would have to be stored in the back street

A letter has been provided from the occupant of the flat above 528 Blackburn Road adjacent, stating that they have no objection to the proposal.

Petitions:- a petition signed by the customers of "Body Perfect", 526 Blackburn Road, has been submitted. The petition contains 61 signatures. Comments written on the petition include:-

• too many takeaways already • litter • not in keeping with area • lowers the tone

26 • smells • undesirables hanging about • no parking facilities • effect on customers of "Body Perfect"

Elected Members:- Councillor Emma Scowcroft has asked for the application to be determined by Committee.

Applications which are not in accordance with Development Plan policies should be refused unless material considerations justify granting permission.

Similarly, proposals which accord with Development Plan policies should be approved unless there are material considerations which would justify a refusal of permission.

It is therefore necessary to decide whether this proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and then take account of other material considerations.

The main impacts of the proposal are:-

* impact on highway safety * impact on living conditions of nearby and adjoining residents

Impact on Highway Safety UDP Policy S7 and PCPN9 set out the Council's approach to dealing with applications for hot food takeaways and refer specifically to highway safety and parking. UDP Policy A5, together with PCPN21, seeks to ensure that new development makes adequate provision for access, parking and servicing.

The site does not have any parking provision of its own and therefore people visiting the premises by car would need to park on the highway or in nearby parking spaces. Waiting restrictions are in force during the day on Blackburn Road, but not after 6:30pm. Parking provision is available at the Asda car park.

Para 51 of PPG13 Transport states that LPAs should "not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish, other than in exceptional circumstances which might include for example where there are significant implications for road safety which cannot be resolved through the introduction or enforcement of on-street parking controls."

Due the lack of waiting restrictions during the opening hours of the takeaway, and the presence of parking provision nearby, the proposal is not considered to be contrary to UDP Policy A5.

Impact on the Living Conditions of Nearby and Adjoining Residents

27 UDP Policy S7, supported by PCPN9, is permissive of hot food takeaways in locations where the Council is satisfied that no significant harm will arise after assessing the proposal in terms of highway safety, including parking, noise, disturbance, smells or odours.

Paragraph 12a of PCPN9 states that hot food takeaways will not be acceptable where there is a residential property adjacent. This is defined as both next to and having a close relationship to. A footnote to the policy states that the definition:-

".. . .includes residential uses that are immediately above the premises, next door to the premises, or above premises next door. The definition also includes residential properties that are separated from the site in question, but considered to relate closely to it. This definition is not intended to preclude the change of use of high street shops where there are residential properties behind. "

There is a flat above the site of the proposed takeaway and one above 528 Blackburn Road, immediately adjacent.

The presence of a flat above the application premises is not considered to be a reason why the proposal should be resisted. This flat is in control of the application, and were the Local Planning Authority to consider the proposal acceptable in all other regards, a condition could be imposed requiring that the flat be occupied solely by the management or employees of the takeaway. Indeed, PCPN9 recommends such a condition in these instances.

However, the flat above 528 Blackburn Road is outside of the control of the Applicant. PCPN9 is clear in its advice that the relationship between a ground floor takeaway and a first floor adjacent flat is unacceptable. The Council has refused applications that would result in a similar relationship, and has been successful in defending its approach at appeal, notably at 47/49 Higher Market Street, Farnworth.

The Applicant has provided a letter from the occupant of the flat above 528 Blackburn Road, stating that they have no objections to the proposal. However, planning acts in the public interest, not the interest of private individuals, and needs to take a longer term view than that of the current relationship between occupiers of properties. It should look at the relationship between uses, not occupiers. Occupiers may change in just a few years, but uses can be around for decades or longer. PCPN9 was adopted to reduce the incidence of residential properties having an unacceptable relationship with incompatible uses such as hot food takeaways. Therefore, whilst this letter of support needs to be taken into account it cannot be the sole determining factor. The main determinant should be the Unitary Development Plan (Policies EM2 and S7), together with other material considerations such as Planning Control Policy Note No.9.

The proposal is considered to be contrary to polices seeking to protect the living conditions of nearby residents.

Conclusion Comments made by objectors regarding fears of crime, proliferation of takeaway uses and the use being inappropriate for the area are considered to be unsubstantiated. Hot food takeaways are considered to be acceptable in principle in predominantly commercial areas

28 such at the Astley Bridge Local Shopping Centre - subject to other considerations such as an acceptable relationship with residential properties.

Whilst the Applicant is considered to have provided sufficient information to overcome the 1993 highways reason for refusal, the issue of impact on residential amenity remains. Due to an unacceptable relationship with an adjacent residential property, and the subsequent likelihood of harm to the living conditions of present and future occupiers by way of noise, disturbance and odours, the application is considered to be contrary to UDP Policies EM2, EM3 and S7, together with Planning Control Policy Note No.9.

The proposal is recommended for refusal.

Recommendation: Refuse

Recommended Conditions and/or Reasons

1. The proposed use as a hot food takeaway will increase noise, activity and odours in and around the premises to the detriment of the living conditions of nearby residents, particularly those of 528a Blackburn Road, and is therefore contrary to Policies S7, EM2 and EM3 of Bolton's Unitary Development Plan and Planning Control Policy Note No.9 - "The Location of Restaurants, Cafes, Public Houses, Bars and Hot Food Take Aways in Urban Areas".

29 30 31 32 Date of Meeting: 07 August 2008 Item Number: 5

Application Reference: 80487/08

Type of Application: Full Planning Application Registration Date: 04/07/2008 Decision Due By: 29/08/2008 Responsible Martin Mansell Officer:

Location: SKATEPARK AT DAWES STREET, BOLTON, BL3 6AQ

Proposal: RENEWAL OF TEMPORARY PERMISSION (77961/07) FOR CHANGE OF USE FROM CAR PARK TO SKATE PARK (D2) FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF 3 YEARS

Ward: Great Lever

Applicant: Bolton Council Agent :

Officers Report

Proposal The Applicant seeks consent to continue to use the former car park at Dawes Street as an area for skateboarding for a further period of three years.

Planning permission was granted in on 23 August 2007 for the use of the land as a skate park for a period of one year. The following condition was attached:-

"This permission shall be for a temporary period expiring on 31st August 2008 when the use of the land and structures hereby approved shall be discontinued and the structures removed and the land reinstated in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Local Planning Authority before the expiry date.

Reason - The assessment of the effects of the development is difficult and a temporary permission will enable the Local Planning Authority to keep the matter under review, in the interests of amenity, over an extended period."

The use involves the provision of a number of demountable ramps and other structures on the site. Whilst these structures are removable, they remain in place when the skate park is not in use. The park is open in that users have access to it whenever they wish.

The Applicant, Bolton Council's Sport, Health and Inclusion Service has submitted a supporting statement.

Site Characteristics

33 The site is a former surface level car park, now in use as a skate park. The gable elevation of 51 Great Moor Street visually dominates the site, and other boundaries include Great Moor Street, Dawes Street and the Bolton - Preston railway line. All nearby properties are in commercial use, including small shops, a public house and a Morrison's supermarket. The nearest residential properties appear to be in Hargreaves House, approximately 160 metres away.

The site now contains ramps for the purposes of skateboarding, together with ancillary structures such as bins and benches. Boundary treatments vary but include railings and hedges.

Policy PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG17 Sport and Recreation

RSS for the North West

UDP Policies D2 Design, EM2 Incompatible Uses, EM3 Pollution, O1 Open Space and Recreation, A5 Roads, Paths, Servicing and Car Parking, CP1, CP4 Provision of Community Facilities in Appropriate Locations.

History Planning permission was granted in on 23 August 2007 for the use of the land as a skate park for a period of one year (77961/07).

Technical Consultations Bolton Council - Highway Engineers:- to be reported at the meeting.

Greater Manchester Police - Crime Prevention Officers:- to be reported at the meeting.

Representations Letters:- three representations of support have been received from users of the skate park. The representations are quoted below:-

• I am a regular user of the skate-park in question and I think that I am speaking on everyone's behalf that goes there when I say that the skate-park should stay there for the next three years. Youth facilities around Bolton are very limited and the skate-park is used by all children from the ages of 6 - 20 as far as I know. I think that everyone would be really disappointed with the Council if they were to get rid of the skate-park that is used so frequently by us youths.

• The skate park provides loads of people with a safe fun place to hang out and just meet new people, so please let us keep it.

• I've heard of the terrible acts that have been happening at the Skate Park near Morrisons. But I am sending this to you, to ask that you think about keeping the Skate Park open. Lots of really great people use the skate park, and it is where a lot of good

34 relationships are built, and it keeps people from making trouble elsewhere. Would you prefer it if kids where locked up inside their homes for the rest of their lives? We'd seriously go mad. So please, consider keeping it open, and if it needs more security or something, then just get some people to stand around, so if they see any funny business, then they can stop it.

Applications which are not in accordance with Development Plan policies should be refused unless material considerations justify granting permission.

Similarly, proposals which accord with Development Plan policies should be approved unless there are material considerations which would justify a refusal of permission.

It is therefore necessary to decide whether this proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and then take account of other material considerations.

The main impacts of the proposal are:-

* impact on recreational provision * impact on the character and appearance of the area * impact on neighbouring uses * impact on the road network

Impact on Recreational Provision PPG17 Sport and Recreation is a material consideration in the determination of this proposal, and provides the following advice. In identifying where to locate new areas of open space, sports and recreational facilities, local authorities should:

• promote accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport, and ensure that facilities are accessible for people with disabilities; • locate more intensive recreational uses in sites where they can contribute to town centre vitality and viability; • avoid any significant loss of amenity to residents, neighbouring uses or biodiversity; • improve the quality of the public realm through good design; • look to provide areas of open space in commercial and industrial areas; • add to and enhance the range and quality of existing facilities; • carefully consider security and personal safety, especially for children; • meet the regeneration needs of areas, using brownfield in preference to greenfield sites; • consider the scope for using any surplus land for open space, sport or recreational use, weighing this against alternative uses; • assess the impact of new facilities on social inclusion; and • consider the recreational needs of visitors and tourists.

35 UDP Policy O1 states that the Council will permit development proposals that protect and improve recreational land and facilities. Policy CP4 is supportive of facilities for community use in appropriate locations.

The proposal involves the continued of a recreational facility in a central location, accessible by public transport and by walking. Despite its town centre location, it is positioned away from areas currently undergoing development for residential use, and from existing dwellings. As a car park it represents a brownfield site, reducing pressure on the use of greenfield sites for recreational purposes.

Both Dawes Street and Great Moor Street have significant pedestrian flows and therefore the site benefits from a degree of natural surveillance. An existing CCTV camera is situated in the southwestern corner of the site.

The proposal would result in the improvement of the facilities available to young people in the Borough for physical recreation, and is considered to be appropriately sited.

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area UDP Policy D2 requires new development to be compatible with its surroundings.

The previous use of the site was for surface level car parking. It is not considered that the proposed use will have any significant visual impact over and above that which could be expected to result from the parking of cars, and therefore the proposal is considered to comply with UDP Policy D2.

Impact on Neighbouring Uses UDP Policies EM2 and EM3 seek to ensure that new development does not give rise to land use conflicts by reason of noise, smell, safety, health, lighting, disturbance, traffic or other pollution.

The application site is located away from areas of existing housing and areas currently subject to development for residential use. It is in a busy area where the noise, disturbance and traffic that goes with any Town Centre is to be expected. It is against this level of background noise and activity that the application must be assessed.

It is not considered that the proposed use will give rise to an unreasonable amount of noise and disturbance over and above that which could be expected in a central location.

Impact on the Road Network The Council's Highway Engineers did not raise objection to the original approval, subject to parts of Markland Street and Back Dawes Street remaining unobstructed. A condition is therefore recommended preventing ramps or other structures being placed on the highway.

Conclusion The proposed use as a skate park is considered to provide a valuable resource for recreation in a central location, without causing unreasonable harm to other nearby uses.

36 Whilst there have been reports of incidents at the site, these are considered to be operational matters for the Council as provider of the site and service. The application is supported by a statement expressing a commitment to tackle problems at the site and therefore these issues are considered to be matters for the Council to consider as site owner and provider, rather than as Local Planning Authority.

The skate park is considered to be appropriately located in land use planning terms, and is appropriately designed. The use delivers benefits in terms of activity, leisure and social interaction and is considered to comply with the relevant policies. For these reasons, it is recommended that the continued use be approved for the period applied for.

Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions

Recommended Conditions and/or Reasons

1. This permission shall be for a temporary period expiring on 31st August 2011 when the use of the land and structures hereby approved shall be discontinued and the structures removed and the land reinstated in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Local Planning Authority before the expiry date.

Reason

The Applicant has applied for a temporary permission.

2. The boundary treatments approved conditionally to approval 77961/07 shall be retained in full.

Reason

To ensure the safe use of the site.

3. No ramps or other structures shall be placed upon the public highway at Markland Street and Back Dawes Street which shall remain open to pedestrians at all times. Reason To allow pedestrian access to the highway.

37 38 39 40 41 42 Date of Meeting: 07 August 2008 Item Number: 6

Application Reference: 80188/08

Type of Application: Full Planning Application Registration Date: 27/05/2008 Decision Due By: 22/07/2008 Responsible Andrew McGlone Officer:

Location: 15A RYDAL ROAD, BOLTON, BL1 5LQ

Proposal: DEMOLITION OF BUNGALOW AND ERECTION OF 2 FOUR BEDROOMED DETACHED HOUSES

Ward: Heaton and Lostock

Applicant: Mr Gaskell Agent : Greenhalgh & Williams

Officers Report

Background This application is a resubmission of a application proposal for three dwellings which was withdrawn by the applicant based on officers concerns over the proposal. (application ref: 79639/08)

Proposal It is proposed to demolish the existing bungalow and replace it with two four bedroom detached dwellings faced with red brick together with a tiled roof to complement the surrounding pattern of development.

Access for both dwellings would be directly from Rydal Road with off road parking sufficient for two vehicles together with integral garages.

The overall pattern of residential development is maintained in respect of front and rear gardens and the scale and design reflect the urban grain of Rydal Road, in particularly the building lines, ridge heights and architectural styles.

The land slopes down to the rear by approx. 2 metres.

The existing boundary landscaping is to be retained and the proposal provides for the erection of 2 metre timber fencing to the dividing rear boundaries.

Site Characteristics The surrounding properties are predominately semi detached dwellings, with individual driveways and gardens, containing trees which add to the feel of a suburban residential development.

Policy National Policy PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS3 Housing

UDP Policy A5 roads, Paths, Car Parking and Servicing; A6 Car Parking Standards; D2 Design; D3 Landscaping;EM4 Contaminated Land; H3 Housing Development; H5 Housing Density.

PCPN2 Space around Dwellings; PCPN21 Highways Considerations; PCPN27 Housing Development

History Application 79639/08 proposed the demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of three dwellings. This was withdrawn by the applicant based on officer advice that the scheme represented over development.

Technical Consultations Bolton Council – Highways Engineer – the driveways should be widened to 4.8 metres.

Bolton Council – Pollution Control Officers – no objections the phase 1 report did not raise any need for further survey work to be completed.

Bolton Council –Wildlife Liaison Officer – no objections, although the tree and hedgerows on the southern boundary should be protected by temporary fencing should an approval be granted.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – there is no evidence of bats in the existing building. Recommend that the roof tiles are removed by hand and the building is not demolished between the months of June to Mid August. Furthermore provision for bats should be incorporated into the design; this should be obtained through a condition.

United Utilities – no objections.

Representations Letters – a total of eight letters of objection have been received against this proposal on the following grounds:

• The proposal represents overdevelopment; • There could be up to 10 cars parked at these houses; • The site will feel cramped; • In developing the site it will cause disturbance to a residential area (not a planning consideration); • The rear building lines will extend beyond the properties either side, resulting in a loss of privacy and amenity; • Roof lines for the other properties on Rydal Road are parallel with the road, these are different and run back to front; • There is no front wall on the plans, this is characteristic of Rydal Road;

44 • The plans do not indicate the windows on the gable wall will be opaque; • There is a significant difference in levels which will cause the property to be higher than those around; • The proposal represents an excessive density for the site compared to those around; • The area doesn't require regeneration; • The existing bungalow would provide suitable accommodation for the elderly.

Applications which are not in accordance with Development Plan policies should be refused unless material considerations justify granting permission.

Similarly, proposals which accord with Development Plan policies should be approved unless there are material considerations which would justify a refusal of permission.

It is therefore necessary to decide whether this proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and then take account of other material considerations.

The main impacts of the proposal are:-

* impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area * impact on Highway Safety * impact on the Housing Density

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area UDP Policy D2 requires that development is compatible with or improves its surroundings.

Rydal Road is an established residential area, it offers predominantly semi detached properties, although the adjoining property is a bungalow, which offers a degree of variance in the street scene.

The proposal would add to the varied street scene through the creation of two detached dwellings and the proposal maintains the urban grain by virtue of the site layout, provision of front and rear gardens and individual driveways. It is also noted that the ridge heights match surrounding properties and privacy to either side is maintained through the use of opaque glazing.

The roof lines have been orientated at 90 degrees to the highway, but on balance it is considered to be acceptable since it will offer variation across the wider street scene.

The new dwellings are designed such that they extend beyond the rear building line however this is marginal and does reflect the existing pattern set by the footprint of the bungalow occupying the site. A garage in the curtilage of 15 Rydal Road will reduce the impact of the extended building in that it provides a visual barrier to the new development. It is considered that this is consistent with policy D2 of the UDP.

PCPN2 sets out the Council's standards regarding interface distances between properties which are satisfied by the proposal and overall in design and appearance terms the development is compatible with its surroundings.

Impact on Highway Safety Policy A5 seeks proposals that do not adversely affect the safety of highway users, including pedestrians, as well as the safe and efficient circulation of vehicles. Policy A6 stipulates that an appropriate provision of car parking should be provided. In this location it is deemed two spaces per unit should be provided. Each unit would have an individual driveway off Rydal Road; this is consistent with the character of Rydal Road, it would ensure two spaces are provided per plot. Also an integral garage is outlined in the plans. The highways engineer requested the driveway be widened to 4.8 metres which has been achieved and the proposal more than satisfies the requirements of the highways policies of the UDP, particularly in respect of off road parking. (Policies A5 and A6 and Appendix 7) Impact on the Housing Density The development increases the density on the site however, as can be seen from the layout plans attached to the agenda it reflects the main pattern locally. The addition of the extra unit on the site provides for a net density equating to 40 dwellings per hectare and accords with PPS3 and policy H5 of the UDP.

Conclusion The proposal is compatible with the surround area in terms of land use, scale, massing, design and appearance and represents an acceptable development within that context. Members are recommended to approve the application subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions

Recommended Conditions and/or Reasons

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

Reason

Required to be imposed pursuant to section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Phase II Report Should the approved Phase I Report recommend that a Phase II Report is required, then prior to commencement of any site investigation works, design of the Phase II site investigation shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Site investigations shall be carried out in accordance with the approved design and a Phase II Report shall then be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. The Phase II Report shall include the site investigation data, generic quantitative risk assessment, detailed quantitative risk assessment (if required) and recommendations regarding the need or

46 otherwise for remediation. Should the Phase I Report recommend that a Phase II Report is not required, but during construction and prior to completion of the development hereby approved, contamination or gas migration is found or suspected, the developer shall contact the Local Planning Authority immediately and submit proposals for investigation and remediation of the contamination or gas migration within seven days from the date that it is found or suspected to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. Options Appraisal Should the Phase II Report recommend that remediation of the site is required then unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, no development shall commence unless or until an Options Appraisal has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The Options Appraisal shall include identification of feasible remediation options, evaluation of options and identification of an appropriate Remediation Strategy. Implementation of Remediation Strategy No development shall commence, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, until the following information relating to the approved Remediation Strategy has been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority: i) Detailed remediation design, drawings and specification; ii) Phasing and timescales of remediation; iii) Verification Plan which should include sampling and testing criteria, and other records to be retained that will demonstrate that remediation objectives will be met; and iv) Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (if appropriate). This should include a protocol for long term monitoring, and response mechanisms in the event of non compliant monitoring results. The approved Remediation Strategy shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved phasing and timescales and the following reports shall then be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing: v) A Verification Report which should include a record of all remediation activities, and data collected to demonstrate that the remediation objectives have been met; and vi) A Monitoring and Maintenance Report (if appropriate). This should include monitoring data and reports, and maintenance records and reports to demonstrate that long term monitoring and maintenance objectives have been met. Reason

To ensure that the development is safe for use.

3. No development shall be commenced until samples of the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof(s) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

To ensure the development either fits in visually with the existing building and safeguards the character and visual appearance of the locality or ensures the development safeguards the character and visual appearance of the locality.

4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, prior to the development hereby approved/permitted being brought into use, the bathroom and en-suite window(s) in the side elevations facing 15 and 15b Rydal Road of the development hereby approved/permitted shall be provided with and permanently glazed, in textured glass whose obscuration level is 5 on a scale of 1 - 5 (where 1 is clear and 5 is completely obscure).

Reason

48 To ensure adequate standards of privacy are obtained.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending or replacing that Order) unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority no windows, doors or other openings shall be formed in the elevations of the development hereby approved/permitted other than those shown (indicated) on the approved drawings (if any) nor shall those existing windows, doors or other openings (if any) be enlarged or altered.

Reason

To ensure adequate standards of privacy are obtained.

6. No development shall be started until the trees within or overhanging the site have been surrounded by fences of a type to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The approved fencing shall extend to the extreme circumference of the spread of the branches of the trees (in accordance with BS 5839) or as may otherwise be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority; such fences shall remain until all development is completed.

Reason

In order to avoid damage to tree(s) within the site which are of important amenity value to the area.

7. The development hereby approved/permitted shall not be brought into use unless and until the means of vehicular access from Rydal Road has been constructed and laid out entirely in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason

In the interests of highway safety.

8. No work, including the storage of materials, or placing of site cabins, shall take place within the extreme circumference of the branches of any tree on or overhanging the site.

Reason

In order to avoid damage to tree(s) within the site which are of important amenity value to the area.

9. No development shall take place unless and until a detailed scheme for the retention of part of the boundary wall on Rydal Road has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The detailed scheme shall specify the works to be carried out to make the wall good. Such works that form the approved scheme shall be completed before the development is brought into use.

Reason

To safeguard the visual appearance of the area.

10. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, details for the provision of a bat box within the overall development scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented entirely in accordance with the approved details before the dwelling to which it relates have been occupied, and retained thereafter.

Reason

To mitigate against the loss of the habitat of protected species.

49 50 51 52 53 54 Date of Meeting: 07 August 2008 Item Number: 7

Application Reference: 79693/08

Type of Application: Full Planning Application Registration Date: 04/04/2008 Decision Due By: 04/07/2008 Responsible Helen Williams Officer:

Location: TESCO SUPERSTORE, MANSELL WAY, HORWICH, BOLTON, BL6 6JS

Proposal: EXTENSION TO EXISTING STORE INCLUDING NEW ENTRANCE, MEZZANINE LEVEL AND ALTERATIONS TO CAR PARK

Ward: Horwich and Blackrod

Applicant: Tesco Stores Ltd. Agent : G.L.Hearn

Officers Report

Proposal Permission is sought for the erection of a side extension on the north eastern side of the Tesco store (measuring 29 metres wide and being 2,390 square metres in size and a new first floor mezzanine level which will create 825 square metres of floorspace. The proposal will increase the gross internal floorspace by 3,387 square metres (2,597 square metres of net tradeable area). The mezzanine level will contain the cafe and offices currently located on the ground floor and the new ground floor extension will increase the area available for comparison (non-food) goods.

The proposal also includes the relocation of the store entrance, so that it will be to the north of the existing entrance.

The car parking areas are also to be redesigned to accommodate the new extension. The number of parking spaces will be increased by 14, though all 14 spaces will be for the mobility-impaired.

Site Characteristics The Tesco store is located within Middlebrook Retail and Leisure Park, but is unallocated within the UDP. To the west of the application site is The Reebok Stadium.

Access into the site is off Mansell Way.

55 The existing foodstore has a gross floorspace of around 10,495 square metres and a net sales area of around 7,362 square metres at ground floor level. The store is currently branded a Tesco "Extra", and retails a wide variety of food and non food products.

Policy PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS6 Planning for Town Centres RSS13 North West

UDP Policies: EM4 Contaminated Land; D2 Design; A3 Travel Plans; A5 Road Network; A6 Car Parking; A9 Access for People with Disabilities; S1 Retail and Leisure; S4 Retail Proposals Outside Defined Centres.

PCPN10 Planning Out Crime; PCPN21 Highways Considerations

History Planning permission for the erection of an A1 retail store with petrol filling station and associated car parking, servicing and pedestrian and vehicular access was granted in December 2000 (58092/00).

Application 71338/05 for the erection of an extension to form a cage marshalling and an administration area together with associated loading bays with canopy over for home delivery service including erection of fence and relocation of parking spaces was approved in September 2005.

The erection of a single storey extension at the front of the store was granted permission in February 2006 (72985/05).

Planning permission for the installation of a canopy at the front of the store was granted in July 2006 (74187/06).

Application 76347/07 for the erection of a glazed entrance lobby with 2 sliding entrance doors to the side was granted permission in March 2007.

There have been a number of applications for the erection of signs at Tesco, which have all been approved (58414/01, 58847/01, 59774/01, 67261/04, 75420/06 and 76329/07).

Technical Consultations Bolton Council - Spatial Planning Officers:- state that the Applicant has demonstrated the need for the development within their retail statement and subsequent submitted information. A sequential approach to site selection has been demonstrated and it was found that alternative sites were unsuitable for the proposed development, therefore leaving an extension at Middlebrook as the only alternative. It has also been demonstrated within the retail statement that the vitality and viability of any nearby town, district or local centre will not be harmed. Finally, the Applicant has demonstrated that the site is accessible by a choice of means of transport. Officers advise that a condition be attached for a full travel plan to be submitted to the LPA prior to occupation of the proposed extension.

56 Bolton Council - Highway Engineers:- reflect the comments below from GMTU.

Greater Manchester Transport Unit (GMTU):- confirm that the Applicant's sales data supports Tesco's claim that the proposed extension will only generate modest traffic increases, which equates to about 4-5% additional traffic. They state that Tesco have not done any operational analysis, on the basis that they anticipate relatively small increases. However, their Transport Assessment acknowledges that there is a congestion problem at the Mansell Way junction, specifically the exit right turn southbound on De Havilland Way, where the complex signal junction requires storage of traffic in a relatively small pocket. The additional 6 vehicles anticipated on this turn for the Tesco expansion would add to existing queues (the total additional exit flow is 25 vehicles, and additional entry would be 26 vehicles). GMTU therefore advise that a MOVA signal control system (Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation) be installed at the Mansell Way/De Havilland Way junction.

Bolton Council - Environmental Health Officers:- no comments.

Bolton Disability Steering Group:- confirmed that the disability parking bays needed relocating and have requested level access into the development.

United Utilities:- no objections.

Greater Manchester Police - Crime Prevention Officers:- have no objection.

Representations Letters:- a letter of objection has been received from Peacock and Smith Limited on behalf of W. M. Morrison Supermarkets plc., objecting to the proposal for the following reasons:

∗ The application should not be determined until the findings of the Council's 2008 Retail Study are available; ∗ They do not agree with the Applicant's assessment of the quantitative need for the additional comparison goods retail floorspace; ∗ Assumptions are made within the Applicant's retail study rather than showing evidence; ∗ The store is already the largest retail foodstore in Bolton and the Applicant advances no case that there is a qualitative need for it to be extended; ∗ They do not agree that the sequential test has been complied with; ∗ All alternative sites in and on the edge of existing centres should be assessed for their potential to accommodate any new comparison goods retail development. Morrison's are aware that there is a vacant unit elsewhere in Middlebrook; ∗ The Applicant has not assessed how any of the town centres are performing as retail destinations and therefore it is not possible to say whether the predicted impact on any of the town centres would be harmful or not; ∗ They expect that an extended Tesco Extra would have a greater impact on Bolton Town Centre than suggested in the retail study.

Horwich Town Council:- raised no objections at their meeting of the 19th June 2008.

Analysis

57 Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications to be determined in accordance with policies in the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Applications which are not in accordance with Development Plan policies should be refused unless material considerations justify granting permission.

Similarly, proposals which accord with Development Plan policies should be approved unless there are material considerations which would justify a refusal of permission.

It is therefore necessary to decide whether this proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and then take account of other material considerations.

The main impacts of the proposal are:-

* impact on the vitality and viability of Bolton, Horwich and Westhoughton Town Centres * impact on highways * impact on the appearance of the area

Impact on the Vitality and Viability of Bolton, Horwich and Westhoughton Town Centres Planning Policy Statement 6: "Planning for Town Centres" sets out the Government's key objective for town centres which is to promote their vitality and viability. It is considered that the planning system has a key role in facilitating and promoting sustainable and inclusive patterns of development including the creation of vital and viable town centres. The Government is committed to developing and supporting successful, thriving, safer and inclusive communities, both urban and rural.

The Statement therefore advises that, in assessing proposed retail developments, Local Planning Authorities should require Applicants to demonstrate: a) the need for development; b) that the development is of an appropriate scale; c) that there are no more central sites for the development; d) that there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres; and e) that locations are accessible.

It is therefore necessary to assess the application in the context of Bolton Council's policies for retail developments in terms of the town, local and district centres.

UDP Policy S1 is relevant to the Borough as a whole and states that the Council will permit retail and leisure development on allocated sites and on other non allocated sites which can be shown to satisfy the sequential approach and which have been demonstrated to also meet the test of need and other national policy tests. This aims to provide a choice of shopping facilities in centres and encourage the reuse of brownfield sites to promote urban regeneration and also to maintain and improve the town centres and minimise the need to travel, particularly by the private car. The policy encompasses the principles of the sequential approach whereby the first preference for retail development is for regional and local town centre sites followed by sites on the edge of these centres, district centres, local

58 shopping centres and only then by out of centre sites which are accessible by a means of transport.

UDP Policy S4 requires an assessment of proposals for retail development outside of town centres. It sets out the following criteria which must be met if such schemes are to be permitted:

(i) the applicant has demonstrated the need for the development in terms of quality and quantity; (ii) the applicant has demonstrated that the sequential approach to site selection has been adopted and that no sites exist within or on the edge of the centres, which are suitable, viable for the proposed use and are likely to become available within a reasonable period of time; (iii) the proposal, either by itself or together with recently completed developments or outstanding planning permissions, will not harm the vitality and viability of any nearby town, district or local centre; (iv) the proposed site is accessible by a choice of means of transport.

The Tesco store is located within Middlebrook Retail and Leisure Park but is unallocated within the UDP. The application site therefore lies outside any of the UDP's defined town, district and local centres.

The Applicant has submitted a retail statement with their application and, at the request of Spatial Planning Officers, they have submitted further information (in the form of email correspondence) to support the statement. The Council's Spatial Planning Officers have confirmed that the Applicant has demonstrated the following within their submission:

(i) the need for the development. It is stated within the retail statement that in 2010 there will be a need for comparison floorspace to absorb the expected surplus comparison expenditure of £42.27 million and that the proposal would provide for consumer choice by continuing innovation and competition in the retail sector;

(ii) that the sequential approach to site selection has been adopted within the submitted information, for example, the Applicant has carried out site visits within and around both Horwich and Westhoughton looking for potential sites. However, due to the size of the sites and the needs of the retailer it was found that the alternative sites were unsuitable for the proposed development, therefore leaving an extension at the store in Middlebrook as the only alternative;

(iii) the vitality and viability of nearby town, district and local centres will not be harmed. For example, within the retail statement it is estimated that there would be a trade diversion of around £0.46 million from Horwich, £0.09 million from Westhoughton and £0.01 million from Blackrod. From a total trade diversion of £11.51 million in 2010, £7.68 million of it (67 per cent) is projected to come overall from Middlebrook Retail and Leisure Park;

(iv) that the site is accessible by a choice of means of transport. For example, cycling and walking routes are in the vicinity, Horwich Parkway train station is 700 metres away from

59 the site and bus services pass close to the site. However, Spatial Planning Officers advise that a travel plan is requested via a planning condition before the extension is occupied.

It is therefore concluded that the proposed extension at the Middlebrook store complies with the requirements of Policy S4 of the UDP.

At the request of Officers in the Council's Regeneration and Economic Development Division, the Applicant has confirmed in writing that the expansion of the store at Middlebrook will not affect the plans for the new Tesco store within the Town Centre (Central Street development).

Impact on Highways UDP Policy A5 and PCPN21 both seek to ensure developments which would not have an adverse impact upon the road network and which makes appropriate provision for parking, the needs of pedestrians and vehicle manoeuvring.

It has been confirmed by Greater Manchester Transport Unit (GMTU) that the proposed increase in retail floor space at Tesco, Middlebrook will only generate modest traffic increases, equating to about 4-5% additional traffic above existing. The Applicant's transport assessment acknowledges that there is a congestion problem at the Mansell Way junction, specifically the exit right turn southbound on De Havilland Way, where the complex signal junction requires storage of traffic in a relatively small pocket. The additional 6 vehicles anticipated on this turn for the Tesco expansion would add to existing queues (the total additional exit flow is estimated to be 25 vehicles, and additional entry would be 26 vehicles). GMTU therefore advise that a MOVA signal control system (Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation) be installed at the Mansell Way/De Havilland Way junction. The Council's Highways Engineers have recommended that this requirement be conditioned as part of a planning approval.

The car parking areas close to the entrance of the store are to be redesigned to accommodate the new extension. The number of parking spaces will be increased by 14, though all 14 spaces will be for the mobility-impaired. The Applicant has amended their plans so that the proposed disability and parent and child spaces are accessible and near to the main entrance. It is therefore considered that the proposed parking for the extended store will comply with Policy A9 (parking standards) of the UDP.

Impact on the Appearance of the Area Policy D2 of the UDP states that the Council will permit development proposals that contribute to good urban design and that are compatible with, or improve, their surroundings.

The proposed side extension, to accommodate the additional floorspace, is to measure 29 metres in width and will extend back as far as the current store. The main entrance to the store is proposed to be moved from its current location further to the north, so that it is nearer to the proposed side extension. The design of the proposed extension is considered to be acceptable given that it will match the design and materials of the existing store and will continue the curved canopy feature at the front. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with Policy D2 of the UDP.

Conclusion It is considered that the proposed extension at the Tesco 'Extra' store at Middlebrook will not harm the vitality and viability of any nearby town, district or local centre, is accessible by a choice of means of transport and the Applicant has demonstrated the need for the development and that the sequential approach to site selection has been adopted. Subject to the Applicant providing a MOVA scheme at the junction of Mansell Way and De Havilland Way, it is also considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the highway. Members are recommended to approve the application.

Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions

Recommended Conditions and/or Reasons

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

Reason

Required to be imposed pursuant to section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development shall not be occupied until a Green Travel Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. This shall set out proposals for accessing the site by means of transport other than the private car.

Reason

To encourage alternative modes of travel to the development.

3. No development shall be commenced unless and until full details of the highway works at the junction of Mansell Way and De Havilland Way comprising the installation of a MOVA scheme have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and none of the development shall be brought into use until such details as approved are implemented in full. Such works to be retained thereafter.

Reason

In the interests of highway safety.

4. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match the colour, texture and size of those of the existing building, and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason

To ensure the development fits in visually with the existing building and safeguards the character and visual appearance of the locality.

5. The development hereby approved/permitted shall not be brought into use unless and until that part of the site to be used by vehicles has been laid out, drained and surfaced in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be made available for the parking of cars at all times the premises are in use.

Reason

To encourage drivers to make use of the parking and circulation area(s) provided.

6. Prior to commencement of development a scheme indicating the provision to be made for disabled people to gain access including level or ramped access, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full before the development hereby approved/permitted is first brought into use and thereafter retained unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

To ensure persons with disabilities are able to use the building(s) pursuant to the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

7. Trees and shrubs shall be planted on the site in accordance with a landscape scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall be carried out within 6 months of the occupation of any of the buildings or the completion of the new development, whichever is the sooner, or in accordance with phasing details included as part of the scheme and subsequently approved by the Local Planning Authority; any trees and shrubs that die or are removed within five years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Reason

To soften the development proposed and to enhance and improve the setting of the development within the landscape of the surrounding locality.

63 64 65 66 Date of Meeting: 07 August 2008 Item Number: 8

Application Reference: 80089/08

Type of Application: County Matters Registration Date: 09/05/2008 Decision Due By: 08/08/2008 Responsible Helen Williams Officer:

Location: J. DICKINSON & SONS (HORWICH) LTD, RIVINGTON VIEW BUSINESS PARK, STATION ROAD, BLACKROD, BOLTON, BL6 5GR

Proposal: USE OF EXISTING WASTE RECEPTION & RECOVERY BUILDING FOR WASTE TREATMENT PROCESS PLANT

Ward: Horwich and Blackrod

Applicant: Orchid Environmental Limited Agent :

Officers Report

Proposal Background This application is a resubmission of application 78680/07, for the same proposal, which was withdrawn by the Applicant on 3rd April 2008. The Applicant stated at that time that they wished to withdraw the application to allow Committee Members and members of the public to undertake a site visit to their sister plant at Huyton, Knowsley.

A site visit to Orchid's new plant at Huyton was undertaken by a number of Committee Members and Blackrod and Horwich Parish Councillors on 2nd July 2008. The Planning Case Officer, the Head of Planning Control, a Highways Engineer and two Pollution Control Officers also attended this site visit. According to the Applicant, no members of the public have chosen to visit their Huyton plant.

A site visit to the Dickinson's site (the application site) was undertaken by Members on 6th March 2008 before the original application (78680/07) was heard at Planning Committee.

The recommendation made by Planning Officers for the original application for the site was to approve the proposal subject to conditions. During the consultation stage of this planning application, the Council's Highways Engineers, Pollution Control Officers and the Environment Agency raised no objection to the proposal.

The Council received 146 letters of objection, petitions of objection containing 705 signatures and 5 letters of support for application 78680/07 (the original application).

67 A public meeting (chaired by the Chair of Bolton's Planning Committee, Cllr. Sean Hornby) was held by the Council at Blackrod Primary School on 3rd July 2008 for the current application. This meeting was well attended by local residents (it has been reported that over 400 people attended) and provided an opportunity for local residents to ask questions of both the Applicant (Orchid) and Council Officers. A copy of the minutes of this meeting are found attached to this report. Those questions that could not be answered on the night will be covered within this Committee report.

Description of proposal Planning permission is sought for the installation of a waste treatment process plant within the confines of an existing industrial building within the J. Dickinson and Son's site (known locally as just Dickinson's). The current recycling operation at Dickinson's receives up to 25,000 tonnes per annum of waste, and is covered by a Waste Management Licence issued by the Environment Agency. The Applicant Orchid Environmental Ltd's proposed plant would treat up to 75,000 tonnes of waste per annum, thereby increasing the waste processed on site by 50,000 tonnes per annum. Orchid state that the waste coming into the site and being processed will be municipal solid waste (MSW) (which comprises mainly of household waste such as glass, paper, biodegradable and kitchen waste, textiles, wood, plastics, cans and stones, and street cleaning) and selected commercial waste. Orchid assert that the proposed facility will not accept hazardous waste, asbestos, chemical and clinical waste or industrial waste.

Orchid have confirmed that they do not have a direct waste contract with Bolton Council. They also do not have any waste contracts at the moment as they cannot get a contract without the planning permission. Orchid state instead that they have various commitments and will be taking household and light commercial waste from existing waste transfer stations within a 15 mile radius of the Dickinson's site.

The proposed waste treatment process plant has been patented by the Applicant, Orchid, and employs Mechanical Heat Treatment (MHT) in the processing of the incoming waste. The proposed plant at Dickinson's will have two processors running in parallel.

There are three stages in Orchid's proposed process, which are as follows:

1) Waste reception and preparation: Waste will be delivered to the reception hall at the northern end of the building via the existing weighbridge by waste collection vehicles or HGVs. The fast acting roller doors will open to receive the incoming vehicles and close prior to waste being tipped on the floor inside the building. The waste is then loaded into a trommel screen using a mechanical shovel. Oversize material from the trommel is fed into a shredder and reduced in size. This is then added to the rest of the material and mixed to form a homogeneous stockpile to provide a consistent quality waste product.

2) Process treatment: The material is then fed into preparation drums. Dependent on the waste composition, a small amount of water may be added inside the drum to prepare the material for processing. The material is then fed into the Orchid patented processors where hot air is applied. This treatment dries, sanitises and breaks down the material making it easier for subsequent separation. The resultant mix of sanitised recyclables and unrefined biomass fuel products is then fed onto a conveyor for the next stage.

3) Separation and material classification: The material is then passed through a sizing screen and oversized materials (such as ferrous metals, non ferrous metals and plastics) are further separated by traditional materials handling processes (such as magnetic separators and eddy current separators) and are removed as recyclable products. The undersize materials are further separated into three broad size fractions, which are then conveyed to the material classification processes to produce a biomass fuel product. Glass, rubble and ceramics are recovered for re-use.

Whereas the current operation at Dickinson's manually sorts mixed waste to separate out recyclables from the incoming waste and sends any residue that cannot be recycled to landfill, the proposed process will mechanically separate and recover pure recyclable materials (such as metals, glass and plastics) and further process the left over residue to produce a range of biomass fuel products, instead of sending it to landfill. Orchid state that the biomass fuel products will be utilised off site by a variety of end users (for example, advanced conversion technologies, cement production and power generation) to replace expensive and diminishing reserves of fossil fuels. Orchid confirm that this will result in 80 per cent (that is approximately 48,000 tonnes per annum) of waste being diverted away from landfill, thereby contributing significantly to landfill diversion targets.

Four bio-filters are proposed to be sited on the north western elevation of the process building, which will be utilised to prevent any uncontrolled escape of dust, moisture and odour. The four bio-filters will be stacked in two sets of two and will measure in total 7.9 metres high by 20.14 metres long by 9.2 metres wide. The bio-filters are to be filled with a natural coconut fibre material, which contains special natural bacteria that digest and render harmless any compounds (particularly those that can cause odours) that might be released from the process. Orchid state that, because of the low temperatures used within the process, there will be no hazardous or toxic fumes generated and therefore none will be released. A cooling tower will be sited in between the two sets of bio-filters and will measure 12.7 metres in height.

It is proposed that the mechanical heat treatment process will operate for 24 hours a day for 6 days a week (Monday to Saturday). The facility will be open for the receipt of waste and the dispatch of products from 07:00 to 18:00 hours Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 15:00 hours on Saturday. The facility is also proposed to be open on Sundays for maintenance and house keeping purposes only (08:00 to 18:00 hours). House keeping purposes is essentially activities such as scheduled equipment and building cleaning and maintenance and repairs.

The access to the proposed waste treatment process plant will remain from the existing dedicated junction into the Dickinson's site. The Applicant expects there to be 23 HGV movements a day (12 incoming and 11 outgoing a day), which equates to 10 extra movements a day (13 movements already take place).

The facility is expected to employ an additional 20 staff, the majority of which are expected to be from the local workforce.

69 The only difference between this current application and the previously withdrawn application is that the process has been rotated through 180 degrees so that the incoming waste is now proposed to be received into the northern end of the building, away from the houses on Station Road. The original application had the reception facility at the southern end of the building.

Site Characteristics The application site is J. Dickinson and Son's, an existing and established Materials Recycling Facility. Dickinson's have been operating a permitted waste facility at the site since 9th February 2001. The identified application site comprises two open ended recycling sheds, a weighbridge and a number of skips. the recycling shed which the proposed process plant is to be located within is the larger of the two buildings on the site and the one furthest south. The site is allocated as an employment allocation within Bolton's Unitary Development Plan (Policy E2).

To the south east of the site are four new industrial buildings (Rivington View Business Park). Dickinson's and Rivington View Business Park are bounded to the north by the M61 motorway, to the south by a dismantled railway and to the west by a sewage works. The nearest residential properties to the site are the terraced properties along Station Road, approximately 150 metres away from the proposed works.

Station Road takes both commercial and residential traffic.

Policy RSS13 North West Emerging RSS13 North West Regional Waste Strategy for the North West (RWS)

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control PPG24 Planning and Noise

UDP Policies: EM1, EM2 Incompatible Uses; EM3 Pollution; EM4 Contaminated Land; D2 Design; A5 Road Network; A16 Pedestrians; E2 Employment Allocations; W1 Waste Management Facilities; W2 Determination of Waste Management Applications; W3 Conditions for Waste Management Applications

PCPN21 Highways Considerations

History Planning application 78680/07 for the use of the existing waste reception and recovery building at J. Dickinson and Son's for a waste treatment process plant was withdrawn by the Applicant on 3rd April 2008. At the time of withdrawing the application the Applicant, Orchid, stated they were withdrawing the application to allow Committee Members and local residents the chance to visit their sister plant at Huyton, Knowsley. The application was heard at Planning Committee on 6th March 2008, where Members decided to defer the application to allow further clarification regarding certain aspects of the scheme. The

70 application was withdrawn before it could be heard again before Committee. Application 78680/07 proposed the same development as currently is proposed at the site. The Council's Highways Engineers and Pollution Control Officers, and the Environment Agency raised no objection to the proposal.

Application 78894/07 for the extension of a recycling shed at Dickinson's was approved at Committee on 6th March 2008.

Planning application 72524/05 for the erection of four industrial units with associated car parking with the variation of condition 2 on planning approval 71244/05 (to increase hours of operation to 06:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday, 06:00 to 16:00 Saturday and 06:00 to 12:00 Sunday) was refused by Planning Committee but subsequently allowed at appeal on 24th November 2005.

An amendment to planning consent 64385/03 for the erection of the four units at Rivington View Business Park was approved at Committee on 4th August 2005, to allow B8 use to be included as an appropriate use for the development (71224/05).

An amendment to planning consent 64385/03, to erect four industrial buildings off Station Road instead of the permitted five, was approved by Committee on 18th June 2004 (67654/04).

Planning permission was granted by Committee in November 2003 for the erection of an extension to an existing building on the site to accommodate a recycling facility and for the erection of five industrial/office units, associated parking and external works (64385/03).

An outline planning application for the erection of industrial units (all matters reserved) was withdrawn by the Applicant in August 2003 (65074/03).

Application 59464/01 for the erection of a coal storage and distribution yard on the site was refused by Committee in November 2001 for the following reasons:

1. Insufficient information has been provided by the Applicant to enable the proposal to be properly judged against the policies of Bolton's Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposal provides inadequate visibility at the junction of the access road with Station Road in the south westerly direction towards Blackrod and due to the material increase in vehicles using the access, will be detrimental to highway safety and contrary to Policy T4/4 of Bolton's Unitary Development Plan and Planning Control Policy Note No. 21 "Highways Considerations".

3. The Applicant has failed to provide information with regard to the impact additional vehicular movements will have on Station Road and given that the width of the carriageway on Station Road over the railway bridge is insufficient for 2 HGVs to pass, the increased in the number of HGVs visiting the site is likely to result in a greater incidence of congestion at the bridge to the detriment of highway safety contrary to policy T4/4 of Bolton's Unitary Development Plan and Planning Control Policy Note No.21 "Highways Considerations".

71 4. The proposal makes insufficient provision for landscaping and screens in connection with the proposed development which will result in a detrimental visual impact on the character and appearance of the area and the nearby open countryside and a loss of amenity for nearby residential properties on Station Road and Castlecroft Avenue and is contrary to Policies CE1, CE13, CE13/1, E5 and E5/1 of Bolton's Unitary Development Plan.

An application for the development of a waste transfer station was withdrawn in June 2000 (54932/99).

A planning application for the erection of buildings and associated works to form a waste transfer station and materials recycling facility was approved by Committee in December 1999 (55593/99).

Technical Consultations Bolton Council - Highway Engineers:- have calculated that the average vehicular movements for the proposed operation will be 58 HGV movements per day (that is 36 movements associated with the incoming waste and 22 movements associated with the outgoing waste). The current licensed operation at Dickinson's (25,000 tonnes) on average will generate 36 movements a day. A traffic survey undertaken by Greater Manchester Transport Unit in November 2006 established that on average there were 8200 vehicular movements per day along Station Road. By converting the calculated 58 movements per day to passenger car units this would equate to 145 movements per day (58 x 2.5), which would equate to a 1.76% increase in the number of daily movements along Station Road.

Engineers highlight that Station Road is restricted in width at the railway bridge. Engineers have currently measured the width of the carriageway over the bridge as 4.8 metres, though there will be minor variations over the length of the bridge. At a width of 4.8 metres, two cars can pass comfortably and a large vehicle and a car can pass with an overall tolerance of 0.5 metres. For two large vehicles to pass each other on the bridge this has to be done on an informal "give and take" system. Engineers state that there is a potential for the carriageway over the bridge to be widened by 450mm as there is an independent footbridge for pedestrians. The widening of the carriageway would give greater tolerance for cars and HGVs to pass but would not allow two HGVs to pass each other.

Given the increase in HGV movements along Station Road, Highways Engineers recommend that the Applicant fund the widening of the carriageway over the railway bridge by 450mm, to ensure that HGVs and cars are able to pass more comfortably.

Bolton Council - Pollution Control Officers:- raise no objection to the proposed hours of working or the potential noise and odour impacts. Officers' comments regarding these issues have not altered from those reported to Committee on 6th March 2008 for application 78680/07. Following concerns raised by local residents at the public meeting of 3rd July 2008 regarding the proposed stack height and the possibility for carcinogens, Officers have requested that the Applicant submit further information to address these issues. Pollution Control Officers have also consulted the Health Protection Agency concerning possible health effects and await their comments. Officers are unable to make a recommendation on the proposal until this additional information has been received.

72 The Environment Agency:- has no objection in principle to the proposed development. The Agency state that in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 the site currently operates under a Waste Management Licence. This licence is currently being modified to incorporate the proposed new plant.

Greater Manchester Geology Unit:- confirm that the existing recovery facility at the site has been in operation for over ten years. Advise that the Council's Highways Engineers and Pollution Control Officers are consulted to assess whether the proposed increase in traffic movements are acceptable. The Unit also confirm that minimal external alterations are proposed to the existing building and that the proposed bio-filters should ensure that no process air emissions are released. They suggest the alternatives or additional measures of using negative pressure within the building and the spraying of perfume. The Unit advise that the Council's Pollution Control Officers are consulted with regard to assessing the impact of odour and noise on the environment.

United Utilities:- have no objection to the proposal provided the site is drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. Any new uncontaminated surface water generated by this scheme should discharge to the watercourse, Pearl Brook, and may require the consent of the Environment Agency. Any contaminated surface water should be discharged to the combined sewer once a trade effluent consent from United Utilities has been approved.

Greater Manchester Police - Crime Prevention Officers:- have no comments to make on the application.

Representations Letters and petitions of objection:- At the time of writing this report 446 letters of objection and 4 petitions of objection containing 502 signatures have been received. Any additional letters received will be reported to Members through the Schedule of Supplementary Information. The letters and petitions of objection raise the following concerns:

Pollution ∗ Air pollution; ∗ Increased dust and dirt from the site, particularly on surrounding houses and roads; ∗ Increase in odours. Orchid have said that the smell from the plant will be like boiled cabbage; ∗ Smells from food waste; ∗ Increase in pollution from extra traffic; ∗ Siting of the facility in the bottom of a valley will reduce the potential for emissions to be dispersed; ∗ If the type of waste is unchecked it may damage the bio-filters; ∗ Water pollution; ∗ MHT is a new process and has therefore not been subject to rigorous testing; ∗ Orchid's submitted assessments have been carried out by themselves and cannot therefore be impartial; ∗ Orchid's assessments were done before their sister plant at Huyton was up and running;

73 Health ∗ The emissions of chemicals could/will be detrimental to health; ∗ The bio-filters could become clogged up and therefore not work properly in filtering the emissions; ∗ The plant is too close to the residential properties; ∗ The effects associated with such a plant has not yet been proven; ∗ Vermin and insects will be attracted to the site; ∗ It could lead to an increase in asthma; ∗ Implications for resident's quality of life; ∗ Concerns about the health of children;

Noise ∗ This will be a 24 hour operation for 6 days a week; ∗ It will be particularly noisy during the night; ∗ Noise will also be coming from reversing bleepers on the trucks. Residents can already hear this; ∗ There will be noise pollution when the doors are opened to let the vehicles in and out of the building; ∗ The roller doors will make a noise; ∗ Workers will want the doors open when it is hot inside the building; ∗ It will result in sleep deprivation for neighbours; ∗ The noise will be worse as the site is located within a valley; ∗ The area is already noisy due to the motorway;

Traffic ∗ The roads surrounding the site are already congested. Adding more traffic will make the situation worse; ∗ Additional HGVs; ∗ The number of HGV movements cannot be controlled; ∗ The number of traffic movements proposed seems to be an underestimate; ∗ The roads leading to the site are residential roads; ∗ It will be detrimental to highway safety; ∗ Station Road already has a high level of accidents; ∗ Impact on pedestrian safety, particularly school children crossing the road; ∗ The railway bridge is unsuitable in width for the increase in HGV movements/it is already unsuitable for the amount of traffic using the road; ∗ Two large vehicles cannot pass each other on the railway bridge; ∗ The visibility splay at the junction with the site is inadequate; ∗ Extra vehicles will further damage the road; ∗ A previous application was refused at the site in 2001 due to the impact on the highway;

Siting ∗ The plant would be better sited in an industrial area, not a residential area; ∗ There is an abundance of wildlife nearby the site; ∗ New houses and apartments have been approved in the near vicinity; ∗ The proposed site at Dickinson's is not at all similar to the site at Huyton. The site at Huyton is the middle of a large industrial area close to a motorway and away from residential properties;

Visual Impact ∗ The bio-filters and cooling tower will be unsightly and a blot on the landscape; ∗ The site is already an eyesore; ∗ The site can be seen from afar; ∗ Effect on the Green Belt;

Other concerns ∗ There are no guarantees about the type of waste that will be processed; ∗ This will not be solely Bolton's waste; ∗ Transporting waste over a long distance is not sustainable; ∗ Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority (GMWDA) has given a contact to Viridor to process Greater Manchester's waste, not Orchid; ∗ Orchid's sister plant at Huyton is only a demonstrator plant; ∗ Moving the doors to the rear of the building will not make a difference; ∗ The residents of Blackrod will be treated like "guinea pigs" for this new process; ∗ The proposal will have no benefits for Horwich and Blackrod; ∗ The facility could be expanded in time; ∗ Blackrod will become the rubbish tip of the North West; ∗ Orchid may not comply with the planning conditions; ∗ Decrease in property values; ∗ Council tax should be lowered as compensation.

Letters and petitions of support:- 14 letters of support and 2 petitions of support containing 165 signatures have been received. These letters and petitions support the proposal for the following reasons:

∗ The proposed facility will reduce landfill; ∗ It is costly to Bolton Council to send waste to landfill; ∗ Renewable energy sources are needed; ∗ The facility would be a flagship project for Bolton; ∗ Jobs would be created for local people; ∗ Disruption would be minimal; ∗ The site is already used for recycling; ∗ Recycling plants have to be put somewhere.

Blackrod Town Council:- unanimously voted to object to the proposal at the meeting of 7th July 2008 for the following reasons:

∗ Traffic; ∗ Proximity of site to houses; ∗ Noise; ∗ There is no evidence that there will be no environmental impacts in the long term (the Huyton plant has only just opened).

Horwich Town Council:- the application was heard at the Horwich Town Council on 21st July 2008 as a consultation item, as Horwich is the neighbouring parish and will be affected by the proposal. Horwich Town Council objected to the proposal on highways grounds. They

75 stated that Crown Lane and Station Road are already busy and congested, particularly at peak hours, and that the railway bridge is unsuitable for the increase in HGVs. Horwich Town Council also objected to any proposed widening of the carriageway over the railway bridge as it would have an impact on pedestrian safety.

Public Meeting:- a public meeting (chaired by the Chair of Bolton's Planning Committee, Cllr. Sean Hornby) was held by the Council at Blackrod Primary School on 3rd July 2008. This meeting was well attended by local residents (it has been reported that over 400 people attended) and provided an opportunity for local residents to ask questions of both the Applicant (Orchid) and Council Officers. A copy of the minutes of this meeting are found attached to this report.

Applications which are not in accordance with Development Plan policies should be refused unless material considerations justify granting permission.

Similarly, proposals which accord with Development Plan policies should be approved unless there are material considerations which would justify a refusal of permission.

It is therefore necessary to decide whether this proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and then take account of other material considerations.

The main impacts of the proposal are:-

∗ Principle of the development ∗ impact on the local environment and residential amenity ∗ impact on the highway ∗ impact on the character and appearance of the area

Principle of the Development The European Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) requires Member States to reduce the quantity of biodegradable municipal solid waste (BMW) disposed of to landfill in three successive stages: by 2010 to reduce the BMW landfilled to 75% of that produced in 1995; by 2013 to reduce it to 50%; and by 2020 to reduce the BMW landfilled to 35% of that produced in 1995.

The Applicant Orchid's proposed process will mechanically separate and recover pure recyclable materials (such as metals, glass and plastics) and further process the left over residue to produce a range of biomass fuel products, instead of sending it to landfill. Orchid state that the biomass fuel products will be utilised off site by a variety of end users (for example, advanced conversion technologies, cement production and power generation) to replace expensive and diminishing reserves of fossil fuels. Orchid confirm that this will result in 80 per cent (that is approximately 48,000 tonnes per annum) of waste being diverted away from landfill, thereby contributing significantly to landfill diversion targets.

Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) is the Government's national planning policy on how waste should be managed using the land-use planning system. PPS10 sets out policy for all waste planning bodies, at both regional and local level, and contains a number of important principles for waste planning. The policy also identifies that 'positive planning' has an important role to play in delivering sustainable waste management by inter alia, "providing sufficient opportunities for new waste management facilities of the right type, in the right place and at the right time."

Waste hierarchy A key objective of PPS10 is the principle of "driving waste management up the hierarchy", which means that waste planning authorities should always try to ensure that waste is managed by the best possible environmental means. The best possible environmental means is represented by the highest levels in the hierarchy (that being waste reduction, then re-use, then recycling). The lowest level in the hierarchy, and therefore the last solution, is disposal. As mentioned above, the proposal at Dickinson's will contribute significantly to landfill diversion targets, diverting 80% of their incoming waste away from landfill (disposal).

Cumulative effect Paragraph 21 of PPS10 states that local waste authorities should take into account, "the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well-being of the local community, including any significant adverse impact on environmental quality, social cohesion or economic potential". Dickinson's already have a license for treating up to 25,000 tonnes of waste per year. Orchid's proposed heat treatment plant will treat up to a further 50,000 tonnes of waste per year. The cumulative effect of both these operations (treating up to 75,000 tonnes of waste at the site per year) is assessed later on in the report, within the analysis of the impact of the proposal on the local environment and residential amenity.

A resident asked at the public meeting on the 3rd July whether the Council has or will be undertaking a Cumulative Impact Assessment for the proposal. A Cumulative Impact Assessment forms part of an Environmental Impact Assessment. As an Environmental Impact Assessment was deemed not necessary for this proposal, a Cumulative Impact Assessment is therefore not required. As mentioned above, the cumulative effect of the proposal as described within PPS10 has instead been assessed.

Need Paragraph 22 of PPS10 emphasises that waste companies should not have to demonstrate the need for a waste facility as long as the proposal is consistent with an up-to-date development plan. The proposal is analysed against the policies within Bolton's UDP within this report.

Proximity principle Policy EM12 of the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13) states that facilities for the treatment and disposal of municipal, commercial and industrial waste should be sited as close to the source of waste as possible in order to satisfy the proximity principle. The policy also states that local authorities should use sustainable development

77 principles and advice to ensure that waste management facilities are sited so as to avoid unnecessary transportation of waste material over long distances.

Orchid have stated that the incoming waste to the proposed process plant will be household and light commercial waste from existing waste transfer stations within a 15 mile radius of the Dickinson's site. A 15 mile radius from the application site would cover areas such as Preston, Merseyside, St. Helen's, Warrington, South Manchester, Rochdale, Blackburn and Burnley. As Orchid currently have no waste contracts (only 'commitments') there is no certainty as to where the waste will be coming from. However, should the waste be coming from within a 15 mile radius of the site then this is considered to be acceptable in terms of the proximity principle, given the good motorway links in the area, the fact that all the waste will be coming solely from the North West region (and no other regions or countries) and that the proposed plant will be only one of two such plants within the North West (with the other plant being sited at Knowsley, Merseyside). Indeed the proposed facility would be the closest installation of this nature for many of the areas listed within the 15 mile radius of the site. Although the proposed site would only be accessible by road, and therefore no more sustainable modes of transport, it is nevertheless considered that the proximity principle would be met.

Subject to the proposal being in accordance with local planning policy, it is therefore considered that the principle of the proposed waste treatment process plant is acceptable.

Impact on the Local Environment and Residential Amenity Policy EM1 of Bolton's Unitary Development Plan (UDP) seeks to promote a safe, clean and healthy environment for the benefit of the Borough's residents, businesses and visitors, and also assists in reducing the harmful impacts of the various activities and processes on the wider environment. Policy EM2 of the UDP seeks to permit development proposals that will not result in unacceptable impacts on existing uses or likely future development by reason of noise, smell, safety, health, lighting, disturbance, traffic or other pollution, whilst Policy EM3 seeks development which does not adversely affect levels of air, water, land, noise or light pollution.

Policies W1, W2 and W3 of the UDP specifically concern proposals for waste management facilities. Alongside accessibility requirements, Policy W2 requires that development proposals for new or extended waste management facilities do not adversely affect the amenities of the occupiers of properties and that proposed works are adequately screened or landscaped.

J. Dickinson and Son's currently operate an existing waste recovery facility at the site, which is licensed by the Environment Agency. This facility has been in operation for over 10 years and is permitted to treat up to 25,000 tonnes per annum of waste. The facility proposed within this application will increase the amount of waste to be treated on site by up to 50,000 tonnes per annum, so that up to 75,000 tonnes of waste per annum may be treated at the site. The Applicant, Orchid Environmental Ltd., state that the waste coming into the site and being processed will be municipal solid waste (MSW) (which comprises mainly of household waste such as glass, paper, biodegradable and kitchen waste, textiles, wood, plastics, cans and stones, and street cleaning) and selected commercial waste. Orchid assert that the proposed facility will not accept hazardous waste, asbestos, chemical and clinical

78 waste or industrial waste (these types of waste would not be covered under a Waste Management Licence).

The proposed waste treatment process plant has been patented by the Orchid and employs mechanical heat treatment (MHT) in the processing of municipal solid waste and selective commercial waste. The proposed plant at Dickinson's will have two processors running in parallel. Whereas the current operation at Dickinson's manually sorts mixed waste to separate out recyclables from the incoming waste and sends any residue that cannot be recycled to landfill, the proposed process will mechanically separate and recover pure recyclable materials (such as metals, glass and plastics) and further process the left over residue to produce a range of biomass fuel products, instead of sending it to landfill.

The proposed plant and equipment will be housed and operated within the larger of the two industrial buildings on the Dickinson's site. A cooling tower and four bio-filters are proposed to be installed on the north western elevation of the process building for the extraction of air from the plant.

Hours of working It is proposed that the mechanical heat treatment process will operate for 24 hours a day for 6 days a week (Monday to Saturday). Under previous planning permissions Dickinson's currently have planning permission for plant operation between 08:00 and 18:00 hours Monday to Friday and between 08:00 and 13:00 Saturday.

The facility is also proposed to be open for the receipt of waste and the dispatch of products from 07:30 to 18:00 hours Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 15:00 hours on Saturday. This means that HGVs entering the site will be permitted to do so within these hours. The current operation at Dickinson's already has planning permission for these times, apart from Saturdays, when it is only until 13:00 hours.

The facility is proposed to be open on Sundays for maintenance and house keeping purposes only, between 08:00 and 18:00 hours. Orchid state that the activities undertaken on Sundays at the plant will essentially be non-noise-making activities, such as scheduled equipment and building cleaning and maintenance and repairs. There will be no waste processing carried out on Sundays and there will be no deliveries or despatches. The only vehicles that may possibly be used on Sundays would be those related to cleaning, such as a road sweeper. Dickinson's currently have no planning permission for Sunday opening or operations.

The Council's Pollution Control Officers raise no objection to the proposed hours of operation, delivery and maintenance provided that these stated times are conditioned within any planning consent, in order to safeguard the amenity of the area and safeguard the living conditions of nearby neighbours.

Noise Potential noise sources will include equipment, plant and vehicle movements. The proposed plant will be contained within an existing industrial building at the Dickinson's site. Rapid closing roller shutters are proposed to be installed at all current openings to the building, which will minimise the time that doors are open during the receipt and despatch of

79 material. the building will therefore be fully enclosed. Orchid also state that the doors will be automatic so that they will close immediately behind vehicles. The process has been rotated through 180 degrees in this resubmitted application, so that the incoming waste is now proposed to be received into the northern end of the building, away from the houses on Station Road. The original application had the reception facility at the southern end of the building.

The information submitted with the planning application states that the proposed operations will contribute 3-4dB to the background noise in the area, 70 metres from the process building. The nearest residential properties are approximately 150 metres away from the proposed process building, on Station Road. An increase of 3-4dB is considered only to be a small audible change, particularly as ambient noise levels at the site are elevated at most times throughout the day due to traffic noise from the nearby M61 and A6 and the surrounding industrial activities.

Pollution Control Officers recommend that a condition be attached to any planning consent to ensure that all fixed plant and equipment be designed to give a level rating 5dB below the night time and daytime standards as measured 4 metres from the nearest residential properties (as defined in BS4142:1997).

Local residents have raised concerns with regard to night time noise disturbance, particularly the noise from vehicle reverse bleepers. Orchid have only applied for planning permission for the receipt and despatch of materials between 07:30 to 18:00 hours Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 15:00 hours Saturdays. This means that Orchid will not be permitted to have any incoming or outgoing HGV movements during the night.

Odour Potential sources for odour are from the refuse arriving at the facility, sorted material leaving the facility and emissions from the treatment process.

As mentioned above, the use of rapid closing roller shutter doors will minimise the time that doors are open at the process building during the receipt and despatch of materials, so fugitive emissions from the operation will be negligible. All materials brought onto the site will be deposited and stored within the confines of the process building. Also, as a large volume of air is drawn into the building during the drying process of the MHT, a slight negative pressure is created within the building so that air is keep within the building.

The four proposed bio-filters will be utilised to prevent any uncontrolled escape of dust, moisture and odour. The bio-filters are to be filled with a natural coconut fibre material, which contains special natural bacteria that digest and render harmless any compounds (particularly those that can cause odours) that might be released from the process. Orchid state that, because of the low temperatures used within the process, there will be no hazardous or toxic fumes generated and therefore none will be released.

During the determination of the previous planning application for the proposal (application 78680/07), the Council's Pollution Control Officers requested that the Applicant submit an Air Quality Assessment to assess the odour levels at the closest residential properties to the Dickinson's site. These levels were taken at two points along Station Road, four points along

80 Star Lane, one point off Crown Lane and two points along Castlecroft Avenue. The results of the assessment indicate that the maximum predicted concentrations of the odorous substances to be emitted from the site comply with the relevant odour criterion at the closest sensitive locations. It was concluded in the Air Quality Assessment that there would be no significant odour impacts at the closest residential areas as a result of the proposal, even when emissions are at their potential "worst case" scenario (that is, at the permit limits).

There will be some increase in emissions in the area from the increase in HGVs visiting the site, but Pollution Control Officers feel that the difference would not be measurable above the background of existing vehicle movements and advise that the largest source of vehicle pollution in the immediate area is from the adjacent M61 motorway.

The Council's Pollution Control Officers therefore do not raise an objection to the proposal with regard to the potential for odour, provided certain activities are conditioned within any planning consent.

Health Within their recommendations for the original application for the waste treatment process plant at Dickinson's (78680/07), Pollution Control Officers felt that the issue of health could be adequately addressed by planning conditions. However, following vocal concerns from residents at the public meeting of 3rd July 2008 regarding the height of the stack serving the bio-filters and the ability of the bio-filters to remove carcinogenic particles, Pollution Control Officers have asked the Applicant to submit further information to address these concerns. This information had not been received at the time of writing this report.

Pollution Control Officers have also consulted the Health Protection Agency for their comments concerning any potential health effects the proposal may create. Again this information had not be received at the time of writing this report.

Information regarding the bio-filters, comments from the Health Protection Agency and recommendations from Pollution Control Officers regarding the issue of health will be reported directly to Members at the meeting.

Traffic As described in more detail below (under "Impact on the Highway"), there would be an increase of 1.76 per cent in traffic flows along Station Road as result of the proposal. This is not considered to be a significant increase and therefore it is not considered that the increase in traffic associated with the new facility would have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents. Also as stated above, Pollution Control Officers feel that the increase in emissions associated with the increase in HGVs would not be measurable above the background of existing vehicle movements.

Subject to Pollution Control Officers being satisfied that the proposed waste treatment process plant will not have an adverse effect on residents' health, it is considered for the reasons above that the proposal complies with UDP Policies EM1, EM2, EM3, W1, W2 and W3.

81 Impact on the Highway UDP Policy A5 and PCPN21 "Highways Considerations" both seek to ensure development proposals would not have an adverse impact upon the road network and which make adequate provision for parking, the needs of pedestrians and vehicle manoeuvring.

Policy W2 of the UDP seeks to assess development proposals for new or extended waste management facilities in terms of whether the access to the proposed site (taking into account the traffic generated by the proposal) would adversely affect the safety of highway users in its vicinity (including pedestrians) whether the traffic generated by the proposal would adversely affect the safety of highway users (including pedestrians) on links between the site and the strategic route network, and whether the proposal would protect and retain existing transport routes.

Access Access to the proposed facility and the existing Dickinson's operation will remain from the existing junction with Station Road. No improvements to the access are proposed within this application.

An application was refused at Committee in November 2001 for the erection of a coal storage and distribution yard at the application site (59464/01). One of the reasons for refusal was as follows:

"The proposal provides inadequate visibility at the junction of the access road with Station Road in the south westerly direction towards Blackrod and due to the material increase in vehicles using the access, will be detrimental to highway safety and contrary to Policy T4/4 of Bolton's Unitary Development Plan and Planning Control Policy Note No. 21 "Highways Considerations"."

The visibility splays at the junction of the access for the site with Station Road have been measured as 4.5 metres by 75 metres in both directions (north bound and south bound). The visibility standard for a 30 mph speed limit, where actual speeds are not know, is 4.5 metres by 90 metres. A reason for refusing application 59464/01 was therefore that this visibility standard was not met. Despite this, the Highways Engineer at the time stated that, "this existing visibility, though less than that required by condition, is acceptable in highway safety terms".

A traffic survey on Station Road was conducted in November 2006 by Greater Manchester Transport Unit (GMTU). The survey revealed that the 85 percentile speeds on Station Road were 29.7 mph north bound and 33.5 mph south bound (with average speeds being 23.6 mph north bound and 27.9 mph south bound). A copy of the survey can be found attached to this report. Visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 90 metres are the standard for a 30 mph speed limit where actual speeds are not known. On the basis of the figures gained from the 2006 traffic survey Highways Engineers consider that the existing sightlines at the junction with Dickinson's site access with Station Road are still acceptable.

Increase in vehicle movements Planning application 59464/01 for the erection of a coal storage and distribution yard at the application site was also refused for the following reason:

"The Applicant has failed to provide information with regard to the impact additional vehicular movements will have on Station Road and given that the width of the carriageway on Station Road over the railway bridge is insufficient for 2 HGVs to pass, the increased in the number of HGVs visiting the site is likely to result in a greater incidence of congestion at the bridge to the detriment of highway safety contrary to policy T4/4 of Bolton's Unitary Development Plan and Planning Control Policy Note No.21 "Highways Considerations"."

The Highways Engineer stated at the time that there were discrepancies in the supporting statement for application 59464/01 in that the estimated annual delivery movements did not tally up with the estimated weekly movements. The Engineer therefore requested that a traffic count be undertaken on Station Road to establish if the increase in movements would be greater than the 10 per cent recommended by IHT guidelines. This requested traffic count was never provided and therefore the lack of information lead to a recommendation for refusal.

In their planning application Orchid suggest that on a daily basis there will be 12 vehicles each way bringing waste material into the proposed waste treatment process plant and 11 each way taking bulk sorted waste out. There are less vehicular movements taking sorted waste out of the site as approximately 20-25 per cent of the incoming waste is lost to moisture when it is processed, so tonnages produced add up to less than the incoming tonnage. Orchid estimate that there will be 46 HGV movements per day, which equates to 4 movements per hour (1 every 15 minutes).

The Council's Highways Engineers have done their own calculations for the estimated vehicular movements based on the proposed amount of waste to be treated at the new plant, the proposed hours of operation and average vehicle payload. Engineers have calculated that the proposed plant will generate 58 movements per day, which will be 6 movements per hour and therefore 1 movement every 10 minutes. Orchid consider that these calculations are an overestimate.

Dickinson's are currently licensed to take up to 25,000 tonnes of waste per annum, which equates to up to 90 tonnes per day. Using a 10 tonne vehicle payload this generates 36 movements per day.

To assess the impact the estimated 58 additional HGV movements per day would have on Station Road, Highways Engineers have converted this estimate to passenger car units. 58 HGV movements would equal 145 passenger car units. The traffic survey conducted by GMTU in November 2006 showed that there are an average of 8200 vehicular movements per day on Station Road. The converted additional 145 movements per day generated by the proposed development would equate to an increase of 1.76 per cent in traffic flows along Station Road. This is considered to be negligible and therefore would be unlikely to have an adverse impact on the capacity of road junctions in the vicinity.

Width of carriageway along the railway bridge Station Road is restricted in width over the railway bridge, approximately 250 metres from the access into the Dickinson's site. The Council's Highways Engineer has recently measured the width of the carriageway over the bridge as 4.8 metres, but asserts that there will be

83 variations in the width over the length of the bridge. At a width of 4.8 metres, two cars can pass each other comfortably (two cars can pass at a width as low as 4.1 metres) and a large vehicle and a car can pass each other with an overall tolerance of 0.5 metres. The present arrangement at Station Road for two large vehicles to pass each other at the bridge is on an informal 'give and take' system. The Applicant has agreed that this is indeed the current situation.

Engineers recommend that, due to the proposed increase in HGV movements along Station Road, the carriageway over the railway bridge be widened by 450mm to give greater tolerance for cars and HGVs to pass, though this will not allow two HGVs to pass each other at the bridge. This would need to be funded by the Applicant.

The Applicant considers that the requested widening of the road by 450mm is unreasonable and unnecessary as it would not represent a significant improvement to the current situation.

The widening of the carriageway over the railway bridge would result in the reduction in the width of an existing footway adjacent the carriageway. Concerns have been raised by local residents with regard to pedestrian safety at this point along Station Road. Engineers argue that as there is an independent footbridge adjacent the footway over the bridge this should be used by pedestrians as it is already the safer option. Engineers do not believe that the requested widening of the carriageway would adversely affect pedestrian safety.

It is considered, subject to the carriageway being widened over the railway bridge, that the proposed operations at the Dickinson's site would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety or the capacity of Station Road and therefore the application is considered to comply with Policies A5 and W2 of the UDP and PCPN21.

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area Policy D2 of the UDP states that the Council will permit development proposals that are compatible with, or improve, their surroundings.

The proposed plant and equipment will be housed and operated within an existing industrial building at the Dickinson's site. The proposed process building is the larger of the two existing sheds at the site and will not be extended in size. The only alterations proposed to the building are the construction of four bio-filters on the north western elevation of the building (these are to be stacked in two sets of two and will measure in total 7.9 metres high by 20.14 metres long by 9.2 metres wide), a 12.7 metres high cooling tower between the two sets of bio-filters and the installation of roller shutter doors.

The image below, submitted by the Applicant, shows how the bio-filters and the cooling tower will be arranged on the north western elevation of the building and also shows that the cooling tower will be lower in height (by 700mm) than the existing building.

It is felt that the proposed alterations to the building will have little impact on the appearance of the site from the surrounding area, due to the scale of the existing buildings at Dickinson's. The bio-filters are also proposed to be painted green, making them less visually intrusive against the existing green elevation of the building. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the area and is thereby in accordance with UDP Policy D2.

Other Matters Orchid's plant at Huyton Orchid have an operational waste treatment process facility at Stretton Way, Huyton, Knowsley. This facility was granted planning permission by Knowsley Council in March 2007 and is a pilot project that will initially be operational until 31st March 2009 (as applied for by Orchid). This facility is part funded by Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority (MWDA), DEFRA and the North West Development Agency (NWDA). After 31st March 2009 there is potential for the facility to continue to operate for longer.

The facility at Huyton initially treat up to 50,000 tonnes of waste per annum, but it is capable of treating up to 80,000 tonnes per annum. The plant and equipment installed at Huyton are identical to those proposed at Dickinson's. The plant was officially opened on 25th June 2008.

The Huyton plant is sited in an allocated industrial area, just off the M62 and M57. The nearest residential properties to the plant are approximately 460 metres away. A map attached to the report shows the location of the plant.

Why develop the site on a floodplain? This question was asked by a local resident at the public meeting on 3rd July 2008. The Dickinson's site is not shown in the UDP as being within a floodplain. The floodplain includes the adjoining sewage work, Lodge Bank Estate, parts of Butterwick Fields and Angelbank, Rotherhead Close, Avonhead Close, Ashness Close and Red Moss, but not the application site.

85 Conclusion For the reasons described above, it is considered that the proposed waste treatment process plant at Dickinson's is acceptable in principle, will not have a detrimental impact on general and residential amenity, will not have an adverse effect on the capacity of the highway or highway safety and will not adversely impact on the appearance of the area.

Provided that the Applicant widens the carriageway over the railway bridge on Station Road and provides adequate information to confirm that the proposal will not have any adverse effects on public health, Members are recommended to approve the application subject to the suggested conditions.

Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions

Recommended Conditions and/or Reasons

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

Reason

Required to be imposed pursuant to section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby approved/permitted shall not be brought into use unless and until the highway at the railway bridge on Station Road has been widened by an addition 450 millimetres in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and retained thereafter.

Reason

In the interests of highway safety.

3. No deliveries shall be taken at or dispatched from the site except between the hours of 07:00 and 18:00 Mondays to Fridays, 08:00 and 15:00 Saturdays and no deliveries shall be taken at or dispatched from the site on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason

To safeguard the amenity and character of the area and to safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents particularly with regard to noise and/or disturbance.

4. No operations of the Intake Shredding Process shall be carried out on the premises except between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Saturday. No activities shall take place on the premises on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason

To safeguard the amenity and character of the area and to safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents particularly with regard to noise and/or disturbance.

5. No operation of the processing plant shall be carried out except between the hours of 07:30 Mondays and 00:00 Saturdays. No activities shall take place on the premises on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason

To safeguard the amenity and character of the area and to safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents particularly with regard to noise and/or disturbance.

6. Maintenance and housekeeping work within the building shall be permitted 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Reason

For the avoidance of doubt as to what is permitted.

7. All materials brought on to the site shall be deposited and stored within the confines of the building structure.

Reason

To minimise the impact of noise, dust and odour on the general and residential amenity of the area from the increase/alteration of the industrial uses in the area, and to minimise any potential for land contamination.

8. Prior to the commencement of activities a scheme shall be submitted showing all reasonable measures to be taken to ensure that the operations do not give rise to nuisance by virtue of dust or windblown material. This shall include the use of water to suppress dust generated in all operational areas and the collection of wind blown materials as necessary and in any event at the end of each working day. The submitted scheme to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented in full on commencement of activities.

Reason

To safeguard the amenity and character of the area and to safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents.

9. All fixed plant and equipment should be designed to prevent noise disturbance to local residential properties and should be designed to give a rating level, as defined in BS4142:1997, 5dB below the night time LAF90 (5 min) or daytime LAF90 (1 hour), as appropriate for the fixed plant and equipment involved, as measured 4 metres from the nearest residential properties. The monitoring information and the information on the noise levels generated from existing plant and equipment based at the Huyton Plant together with any proposed attenuation required should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their approval prior to the commencement of installation.

Reason

To safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents particularly with regard to the effects of noise.

10. All waste water from the building, site, process and biofilters shall be discharged via interceptors to the foul drainage system.

Reason

To minimise any potential for land contamination.

11. Based on the report submitted by the consultants on behalf of Orchid Environmental Limited the height of the stack serving the biofilters shall be 12.7 metres to ensure adequate dispersal of emissions.

Reason

To minimise the impact of odour and emissions to atmosphere on the living conditions of nearby residents.

12. The emission limits from the stack shall not exceed 5mg/Nm3 for hydrogen sulphide, 5mg/Nm3 for ammonia and 100mg/Nm3 for volatile organic compounds, to ensure the stack height should always be adequate for sufficient dispersal of emissions.

Reason

To minimise the impact of odour and emission to atmosphere on the living conditions of nearby residents.

13. The process plant shall not be operated unless the biofilter system is operating correctly.

Reason

To minimise the impact of odour and emission to atmosphere on the living conditions of nearby residents.

14. Before development commences details of all external lighting equipment shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting in the scheme should be erected, directed and shielded so as to avoid nuisance to residential accommodation in close proximity. The lighting should be designed to provide a standard maintained illumination (LUX) of 5 LUX as measured at the nearest residential properties affected. No other lighting equipment may then be used within the development other than as approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

To safeguard the amenity and character of the area and to safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents.

15. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority no windows, doors or other openings shall be formed in any elevation of the process building other than those shown (indicated) on the approved drawings (if any) nor shall those existing windows, doors or other openings (if any) be enlarged or altered.

Reason

To minimise the impact of noise, odour and fugitive emissions on the general and residential amenity of the area.

16. The development hereby approved/permitted shall not be brought into use unless and until the biofilters have been painted in accordance with the a colour scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter the development shall be kept so coloured unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

To ensure the development fits in visually with the existing building and safeguards the character and visual appearance of the locality.

17. No waste materials shall be burnt on the site.

Reason

For avoidance of doubt.

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Date of Meeting: 07 August 2008 Item Number: 9

Application Reference: 80303/08

Type of Application: Full Planning Application Registration Date: 11/06/2008 Decision Due By: 06/08/2008 Responsible Andrew Lancashire Officer:

Location: BARN AND STABLES OPPOSITE BLACKROD PRIMARY SCHOOL, MANCHESTER ROAD, BLACKROD, BOLTON

Proposal: CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF EXISTING BARN AND STABLES TO ONE DWELLING

Ward: Horwich and Blackrod

Applicant: Mr John Wilkinson Agent : Whitehead & Company

Officers Report

Proposal Planning Application 58434/01 was granted for the erection of an agricultural barn with 3 stables attached. This planning permission was implemented and was completed approximately 2 years ago. The Applicant is now applying to change the use of the stables to a residential property due to there being no further need for stables at the site.

A structural survey and a design and access statement accompany the application.

No bat survey has been submitted with the application.

Site Characteristics The site is situated in an area between the settlement boundaries of Blackrod and Scot Lane End. Located on and accessed from Manchester Road, the site is set within a landscaped perimeter consisting of mature hedges and trees. The site is allocated in the UDP as Green Belt.

The site is currently being used for storage of tractors and other vehicles. It is not clear whether horses are actually kept at the site.

Policy PPG2 Green Belt; PPS3 Housing; PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

UDP Policies A5 Roads, Paths, Servicing and Car Parking; A6 Car Parking; D2 Design; G1, G2 Green Belts; G3 Conversions in the Green Belt; H3 Housing; R3 Conversion of Buildings in the Countryside

101 R5 Landscape Character; N7 Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows; N8 Protected Trees;

Planning Control Policy Notes PCPN7 Trees, Protection and Planting in New Developments; PCPN15 Conversion of Traditional Buildings in the Countryside; PCPN27 Housing Development.

History Two enforcement notices were served in November 2006 relating to the use of the site for the unauthorised stationing of a storage container, caravans and plant and equipment.

Planning permission was granted for a manege under application 68962/04.

A planning application was approved for the erection of a barn with 3 stables attached in April 2001 (58434/01)

A planning application was approved for the erection of a barn and stable block for use with horses and as agricultural buildings in January 1999 (53929/98)

Technical Consultations Bolton Council – Highway Engineers – no objections.

Bolton Council – Environmental Health:- recommend that the application is refused due to the desktop contamination survey being incomplete.

United Utilities – no objections in principle.

Wildlife Trust:- no bat survey has been submitted. This is a requirement of the application.

Representations Letters – 2 letters of objection have been received from residents on the grounds that: ∗ The application is contrary to green belt purposes • The change of use will result in further barn and stable being built in the Borough • The proposal is exploiting a loophole in the planning system • The desktop survey and structural survey are insufficient • There is the potential for bats in the barn. No survey has been submitted. • The proposal will not support the rural economy

5 letters of support have been received on the grounds that: • The building is appropriate for a residential use • The site would be aesthetically pleasing compared to the present use.

2 letters have been received stating there are no objections.

Blackrod Town Council:- objected to the proposal on 07/07/08 as barn conversions should be undertaken within traditional buildings, not within buildings that have only just been built.

Analysis

102 Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications to be determined in accordance with policies in the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Applications which are not in accordance with Development Plan policies should be refused unless material considerations justify granting permission.

Similarly, proposals which accord with Development Plan policies should be approved unless there are material considerations which would justify a refusal of permission.

It is therefore necessary to decide whether this proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and then take account of other material considerations.

The main impacts of the proposal are:-

* impact on the Green Belt

Impact on the Green Belt National policy PPG2 considers that the re-use of buildings inside a Green Belt is not inappropriate development providing:

• it does not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it; • strict control is exercised over the extension of re-used buildings, and over any associated uses of land surrounding the building which might conflict with the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it (eg because they involve extensive external storage, or extensive hardstanding, car parking, boundary walling or fencing); • the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction, and are capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction; and • the form, bulk and general design of the buildings are in keeping with their surroundings

Paragraph 3.9 of PPG2 also states 'It should not normally be necessary to consider whether the building is no longer needed for its present agricultural or other purposes. Evidence that the building is not redundant in its present use is not by itself sufficient grounds for refusing permission for a proposed new use'.

UDP policy G3 is similarly supportive of the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt provided the development meets the criteria set out in Policy R3; it does not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it; and any extensions of re-used buildings and any associated uses of land surrounding the building, do not conflict with the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it.

Policy R3 of the UDP states that the Council will permit development proposals that result in the diversification of the countryside provided that they do not adversely affect its character and appearance. The Council will permit proposals for the re-use of farm buildings provided that the building is of permanent and substantial construction that is capable of conversion

103 without major reconstruction; the form, bulk and general design of the proposal is in keeping with its surroundings; and the proposed use would not include requirements for open storage, areas for vehicle parking or other associated development that would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area.

As can be seen from the planning history the site has not been fully utilised for the stabling of horses and associated storage for a significant period and the proposal is tantamount to the erection of a new dwelling in the Green Belt in that insufficient time has elapsed from the erection of the buildings to this proposal being submitted. No special circumstances put forward to justify a new dwelling in the Green Belt.

Nevertheless, it falls to be considered whether the new use which is being applied for will have a greater or lesser impact upon the character and appearance of the Green Belt than the use of the land for stabling and the keeping of horses. As indicated the site lies in predominantly open countryside to the west of Manchester Road between a ribbon of development which extends to the north of Scot Lane End and the main built up part of Blackrod which terminates with the Greenbarn Way housing development.

It was considered that the grant of planning permission for the stables substantially preserved this gap in that the erection of stables and the keeping of horses established a use which maintained the openness of the site. This would not be the case were planning permission to be granted for the conversion of the buildings to a residential use; the building would be altered by the insertion of new windows giving it a domestic appearance and a substantial tract of land adjacent to the highway would become a domestic curtilage with the associated residential activities and paraphenalia all of which would be difficult to control. The application, moreover, does not contain any garage provision and it is likely that there would be pressure for further extensions to the building all contrary to the aims of preserving the openness and appearance of the Green Belt.

The principle aim in promoting development within the Green Belt is to promote rural economies and to promote rural diversification. PPS7 clearly aims towards improving the diversity of the rural economy. The original permission for the barn and stables enhanced the rural economy by providing stabling for horses. The proposed change of use would result in a loss of the barn and stabling accommodation and would result in more pressure for new buildings in the Green Belt, particularly on the residue of the site to the north that would be excluded from the residential area; this would also undermine the aim of PPG2 to restrict development to essential facilities and appropriate uses. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the guidance in PPS7 in that it does not promote the rural economy.

PCPN 15 'The Conversion of Traditional Buildings in the Countryside' states that the re-use of buildings in the countryside has an important part to play in preserving local heritage. However, since this building is only a few years old there is no heritage value to be saved in this case.

The proposal is considered to be contrary to PPS7, PPG2 and UDP policies G1 and G2.

Other matters. No bat survey has been submitted so that the Council can determine whether nationally protected species are present in the barn. Furthermore, the Environmental Health

104 department considers that the contamination survey is incomplete and is contrary to PPS23 .Pollution Control’. As the proposal is lacking these two surveys it is not possible to properly determine the application.

Conclusion The proposal clearly fails to comply with Green Belt and Rural Economy polices and the applicant has not provide any acceptable justification of exceptional circumstances to depart from National and Local policy on the Green Belt. The application is also recommended for refusal due to insufficient information.

Recommendation: Refuse

Recommended Conditions and/or Reasons

1. The proposal would introduce an inappropriate use into the Green Belt which would detract from its appearance and openness contrary to PPG2 Green Belts, PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and UDP policies G1 and G2.

2. Insufficient information has been provided by the applicant particularly with regard to a bat survey and contamination report to enable the proposal to be properly judged against policies N1 and EM4 of Bolton's Unitary Development Plan.

105 106 107 108 Date of Meeting: 07 August 2008 Item Number: 10

Application Reference: 80055/08

Type of Application: Full Planning Application Registration Date: 09/05/2008 Decision Due By: 04/07/2008 Responsible Andrew Lancashire Officer:

Location: LOW WOOD, HIGH BANK LANE, LOSTOCK, BOLTON

Proposal: ERECTION OF ONE DWELLING

Ward: Horwich North East

Applicant: AEW Architects Agent :

Officers Report

Proposal The proposal aims to erect a large house within the grounds of Low Wood, High Bank Lane.

Access: The access to the site is via High Bank Lane and down the existing narrow private access road to the site. The site has no public rights of way running through the site.

A triple garage is proposed as an integral part of the building.

Design: The design of the proposed dwelling is in the style of a pastiche classical house. The building incorporates domed bay window features to several elevations and a mini colonnade to the western entrance elevation.

Scale: The footprint of the building is approximately 900 square metres and is considered to be large in scale. The proposed building is 2 storeys high with a low roof height measuring 8.4 metres whilst the ridge height measures 6.4 metres from ground level. On the south side of the building the level of the land falls away drastically which enables a basement floor to be installed and encompasses a swimming pool with windows facing southwards.

Siting and Layout: The building is located just to the west of the centre of the site and has limited access around the periphery of the building. A northern temporary access to the east of the site is proposed which measures 5 metres in width.

109 A 450 square metres garden area is proposed to the east of the building whilst the car park and turning area is provided at the west side of the building.

Micro Renewable Technologies: Three types of renewable energy sources are proposed on the building which will contribute to making a minimum of 10% of the total energy. Ground source heat pumps, air source heat pumps and solar thermal panels are proposed on the building. It is envisaged that solar panels and air source pumps will be installed in the roof well behind the parapet walls and will not be visible to the naked eye. The ground source heat pumps are generally dug deep into the ground and therefore would not be seen.

Trees: The proposal involves the removal of 5 trees which sit within the footprint of the building (G6). A further two trees are to be removed to the north of the proposed building. A woodland management scheme is proposed for all the trees on the site. Any works to trees within this woodland management plan will be subject to a Tree Preservation Application.

All trees for removal are proposed to be replaced with a suitable replacement tree of similar size and type.

Site Characteristics The area is characterised by large dwellings of mixed styles with each having large expanses of gardens surrounding them. The trees and hedges in the area all add character and charm to the visual amenities of the locality. The Old Hall Clough newly designated Site of Biological Importance runs across the south of the site.

A house once stood on this site and the traces of this are still evident on the relatively flat central part. The site slopes gently from north to south as it approaches the southern woodland banking where it falls away steeply by approximately 20 metres before it touches the Bessy Brook/Old Hall Clough, which is just beyond the southern site boundary. To the east and north east beyond the site red edge (still within the applicant ownership) are heavier substantial trees in a woodland group within the Old Hall Clough former cub-scout hut area.

Beyond the northern tree belt are residential properties at the Hamlets. These properties are large detached dwellings which are sited a minimum of 18 metres from the site boundary and 32 metres from the proposed northern building line. To the west is a further residential property called Wellfield and is 31 metres from the western site boundary and 65 metres to the western building line. Other residential properties are located to the south east and south west beyond the SBI and are at least 40 metres from the site boundary.

Policy PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Communities PPS3 Housing PPG13 Transport

UDP Policies N3 Site of Biological Importance, N7 & N8 Trees, H3 Housing, D2 Design, A5 Roads, Paths, Servicing and Car Parking

110

PCPN2 Space around Dwellings, PCPN3 House Extensions; PCPN21 Highway Considerations and PCPN27 Housing

History In 2006 following approval of (66268/02) for three houses the developer removed 28 trees which were protected by a TPO and were not part of the agreed landscape plan. In April 2007, a court fined the developer £2,000 per tree at a total cost of £56,000

A TPO application was refused for felling of one sycamore and two oak trees in July 2006 (74099/06)

A TPO application was approved for felling of one sycamore, six goat willow, one silver birch and one oak in July 2006 (74098/06)

A TPO application was approved for pruning of six oak and one goat willow in July 2006 (74097/06)

A TPO application for felling of 21 trees of various species was withdrawn in April 2006 (73687/06)

A TPO application for pruning of 9 trees of various species. Was withdrawn in April 2006 (73688/06)

A full planning application was approved erection of three detached dwellings with garages. October 2002 (62268/02)

A full planning application was withdrawn for erection of 4 dwellings with detached garages (58017/00)

An outline application was approved for the demolition of "Low Wood" and erection of 4 dwellings (All Matters Reserved) March 2000 (56360/00)

Technical Consultations Bolton Council - Highway Engineers:- no objections subject to a condition requiring a passing area on the private access road.

Bolton Council - Environmental Health Officers:- no objections to the contamination survey.

Bolton Council - Tree and Woodland Officers:- the proposal requires the removal of 5 trees which site within the footprint of the building and are within G6. These trees were permitted for removal under the previous application for three dwellings (66268/02). The trees within G6 that have been marked for removal are also in general poor quality trees. All these trees which are to be removed shall be replaced with a suitable species and size to be agreed by the Council.

111 There is significant incursion into the southern woodland, and it is noted that the scheme has been amended to remove the proposed garden lawn here and replace with a native mixed woodland area. The trees within W1 group were surveyed and it is generally considered that there will be impacts in terms of loss of light to the southern elevation windows and trees will become under pressure for removal in future, especially W1/1, W1/2, W1/3, W1/4, W1/5, and W1/6. Based upon their condition, it is considered that if an application was made for the removal of trees W1/ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 under a Tree Preservation Order that the Council would approve these works with replacement tree conditions.

Tree W1/10 is a Sycamore tree and is an early-mature tree that is 7 metres away from the development and does not require removal to accommodate the development. It is noted that the Applicant has amended the plan to retain this tree.

All selective thinning operations as specified should be agreed before hand with the Councils Arboricultural Officer and subject to a TPO application.

Enrichment planting will also be required as a condition of removal of any trees within W1. This should be undertaken in a position that is as reasonably practicable to the position of the trees to be removed to avoid further erosion of the woodland edge. I would note that the formal garden area has been removed from the plans and that the new woodland planting area is to extend up to the building on this side of the development.

In respect to the trees on the northern edge of the site where the temporary access is proposed I would note G4/2 is a partially failed / windblown Norway spruce tree that is hung up in another tree and should be felled on Health & safety grounds. G4/1 Scots Pine has failed in the upper canopy. It is considered that should the tree respond in growth, that this will lead to a structurally weak point on the tree with an increased risk of failure in future. G4/5 Pine tree has also been damaged in the form of losing its upper canopy and as with G4/1 Pine tree it is considered its future retention may lead to safety problems. G5/1 Oak tree requires crown lifting which should be subject to a TPO application.

Generally, it is considered that the issues around the trees can be resolved by planning condition to cover the following points.

• Work method statements for Construction Traffic on the North side and through the centre of the site will be required prior to works commencing. 1. An Engineer’s site specific specification for the geo-web temporary road surface (as per BS 5837:2005) should be supplied and agreed by the Council prior to any works commencing. 2. Phased and detailed Management Plans are supplied for future management works within the sites woodlands and tree groups, and that all tree works should form part off an approved scheme. 3. Pruning operations will require planning approval under a TPO application. 4. All approved tree removal will require replacement tree planting to be undertaken and this should include up to the building line on the southern aspect of the development to ensure erosion of the woodland depth is avoided.

112 Commencement of any works will require notification and a pre-start site meeting with the Council Tree Officers. 5. Protective fencing will be required on site at all times and this must be approved by the Councils Tree Officers 6. All works are to be undertaken to BS3998 and by a qualified Tree Surgeon. 7. Those trees not marked on site below G6, I have assumed are for retention and this should be clarified before the development is approved. 8. Enrichment planting will also be required as a condition of removal of any trees within W1. This should be undertaken in a position that is as reasonably practicable to the position of the trees to be removed to avoid further erosion of the woodland edge. I would note that removal of the formal garden area has been removed and that the new woodland planting area is to extend up to the building on this side of the development.

Bolton Council - Wildlife Officer:- The Council’s Wildlife Officer recommends that no further action is required with regards to Great Crested Newts but makes the following recommendations for conditions which have been suggested in the Applicants Ecological report: 9. Provision for Bat roosting in the new building 10. A scheme for lighting to provide downward cowls to limit light spillage to woodland area • Prior to starting work to check for Bats and Badgers • Surface run off to avoid polluting the Bessy Brook • Fencing to be erected around the trees during the construction period

Bolton Council - Conservation and Urban Design Officers: - The principle of a detached house is supported and which will be more appropriate to the landscape character of the area than the multiple dwellings previously approved.

The Conservation Officer has reservations regarding the overall size of the proposal in relationship to its setting. The comments can be summarised as follows: • The frontage of the property virtually extends the developable width between the tree canopy as a result it will obscure a large part of the landscape features beyond and give the dwelling the appearance of having limited space around it. • It is considered that the overall mass and width of the property some 35metres appears excessive and which would appear cramped given its proximity to the perimeter tree canopy. For a dwelling of this size it would be beneficial to have more open space around it and so as it does not appear squeezed into the width of the site. This is further exacerbated by the building cutting into the slope of the wooded Clough and as such will not sit comfortably within the topography. It is my preference that the width of the dwelling be reduced to sit more comfortably within the landscape setting of the site and the topography. • In terms of the design the scheme resembles a confusion of varying architectural elements and which lack architectural integrity. When the architectural composition is assessed against design criteria recommended by CABE there are a number of aspects which the design distinctly fails on. In particular the design lacks a clear order, especially with regard to the fenestration which is a mix of varying proportions and styles. There is little sense of architectural integrity and honesty and the architectural language appears arbitrary, with varying roofs, and overly busy elevations.

113 • Whilst the building would be mostly concealed by the surrounding planting, sections of the building would be glimpsed from the access road and surrounding properties especially in the winter months. The overall effect would be a hotch- potch of architectural elements and when combined with the excessive mass of the building would detract from its surroundings contrary to policy D2 of the UDP. • It is therefore recommend that the elevations are simplified and given the classical themes already present in the design that the fenestration is given a clearer order and vertical proportion more typical of classical villas to give a more honest and more pleasing architectural expression.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit:- The application site extends into Old Hall Clough Grade C Site of Biological Importance (SBI). This SBI was selected relatively recently. Although it is noted that the built development itself does not encroach within the SBI and does not affect any important habitats, there will be a need to extend the development into the woodland to the south of the development with a consequent loss of trees.

To mitigate and compensate for the potentially harmful impacts upon the SBI arising from the development the applicant has put forward proposals to protect retained trees during the construction phase of the development and to protect and improve areas of the woodland during the operational phase of the development. Conditions are recommended to secure a Woodland Managements scheme and bat surveys prior to removing trees.

The Environment Agency:- no development shall be carried out within 8 metres from the top of the bank from the Bessy Brook.

Representations Letters:- one letter has been received from Wellfield (A residential property to the west of the site) which raises the question of tree management to the western boundary.

Horwich Town Council:- no objections 19/06/08

Applications which are not in accordance with Development Plan policies should be refused unless material considerations justify granting permission.

Similarly, proposals which accord with Development Plan policies should be approved unless there are material considerations which would justify a refusal of permission.

It is therefore necessary to decide whether this proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and then take account of other material considerations.

The main impacts of the proposal are:-

* impact on trees

114 * impact on living conditions of adjacent neighbours * impact on urban design * impact on the site of biological importance * impact on highway network

Impact on Trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order Policy N7 states that the Council will permit development proposals that reflect the intentions of the Red Rose Forest by:

(i) not permitting development proposals which would result in the loss of trees, woodland areas or hedgerows of visual, historic or amenity importance and requiring replacement planting, on- or off-site as appropriate and directly related to the development where it is considered that the benefit of the development outweighs the loss of some trees or hedgerows; (ii) requiring tree planting directly related to and as part of new development proposals and that a scheme of maintenance be approved; (iii) seeking habitat management and creation through landscape improvements; and (iv) making Tree Preservation Orders where trees of landscape or townscape significance are considered to be under threat.

Policy N8 states that the Council will not authorise the felling or pruning of any tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order or in a Conservation Area unless:

(i) removal of the tree or trees forms part of an approved development scheme; (ii) the tree or trees are proven to be adversely affecting the structural condition or safety of buildings or other structures; (iii) the tree or trees should be pruned or felled as a matter of good silvicultural practice; or (iv) the tree or trees present an unacceptable risk to public safety.

Any tree, or trees, subject to this policy that is felled should be replaced in the same locality by a tree, or trees, of suitable size and species.

Policy N9 states that the Council will not permit development that would be liable to adversely affect a protected or other rare species or its habitat, unless it can be demonstrated, by the applicant, that any impact can be successfully mitigated and monitored. Where development is permitted, which may have an impact on these species, the Council will impose conditions, where appropriate, and will seek to use its powers to enter into planning agreements to ensure licensed species mitigation works which facilitate their survival, reduce disturbance to a minimum and provide alternative habitats to sustain at least the current levels of population.

The tree proposals can be split into four categories: • Removal of 5 trees within the footprint of the building

115 • Impact on the woodland group W1 (i) Impact of the construction access on the trees to the north of the building and the removal of two trees (ii) The impact on the remaining periphery trees as a result of the woodland management proposals

(1) The first category of tree proposal is the removal of 5 trees within the footprint of the building. These trees located within tree group G6 have been surveyed and are considered to be generally poor species by the Council’s Tree and Woodland Officer. These trees were approved to be removed on a previous application (62268/02) for three houses and it is considered that providing that these trees are replaced, the proposed removal of trees within G6 is not objected to. Policy N7 and N8 supports this hypothesis.

(2) The woodland group W1 are located across the whole southern boundary of the site which extends northwards into the central part of the site. This group of trees is collectively important woodland for the habitat of species within it and forms part of the Site of Biological Importance. No trees within the woodland area are actually proposed for removal within this application. However, small young ash/sycamore trees are proposed to be removed as part of the woodland management plan. These trees will not be approved for removal under this application and it is proposed that a TPO application is made before any of these trees are touched. It is considered that this is the most appropriate method of managing the woodland.

Although W1 trees are not proposed for removal, they do have an effect on restricting light to the southern elevation of the proposed building. This will undoubtedly put pressure on these trees at W1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 to be removed. The Tree and Woodland Officer generally agrees with the survey analysis of the Applicants Arboriculturist that the condition, life expectancy and growth of these trees are poor. The Tree and Woodland Officer also considers that if a TPO application was made to remove these trees, then the Council would approve these works. Furthermore, the Applicants assert that the lack of light to the southern elevations is not considered to be a problem for the future occupiers. The house has been designed to sit within a woodland context and the windows in this elevation are not main windows. In fact there are swimming pool windows, a play room, a secondary sitting room, two bedrooms, a dressing room and two en-suite bathroom windows. The bedroom windows could be considered main windows but there are four other bedrooms of similar and larger size.

(3) The construction phase will require a two metre area to enable scaffolding around the perimeter of the building. A 5 metre in width temporary access track across the whole northern stretch of the building is required to gain access to the rear. This temporary access will require the removal of one tree (G4/3). The Tree and Woodland Officer accepts that if development is to proceed, this tree will require removal to enable development. During the construction phase, it is recommended that access to the rear of the building is taken through the middle of the property. A condition is recommended for the implementation of the phasing plan, so that impacts on trees are minimised. G4/2 is another tree within this northern area which is to be removed. The Tree and Woodland Officer agrees that this has partially failed and should be removed for safety purposes. Other precautionary measures

116 such as fencing off trees and a special surface for the temporary access road are recommended as conditions.

(4) The remaining works to the periphery trees as part of the Woodland Management proposals such as crown lifting and pruning will be applied for under a TPO Application to ensure that each tree is sufficiently protected from unnecessary works.

Subject to the conditions recommended by the Tree and Woodland Officer, the proposals are considered to comply with policies N7, N8 and N9 of the UDP.

Impact on the Living Conditions of Adjacent Neighbours To the north of the site are the rear gardens of The Hamlet and to the west of the site boundary is the garden of Wellfield. These dwellings and gardens are considered far enough away to ensure that there is no overlooking. Furthermore, due to the site boundaries being almost completely screened, there is no overlooking.

Impact on Urban Design D2. The Council will permit development proposals that contribute to good urban design. Proposals should:

(iii) be compatible with, or improve, their surroundings - in terms of their layout, density, height, massing, architectural style, materials and landscaping;

(iv) create a safe and secure environment which minimizes the possibility of crime; and

(i) be accessible and useable to people of a range of mobility and physical ability.

The Conservation and Design Officer considers that the width of the dwelling should be reduced to sit more comfortably within the landscape setting of the site. Furthermore the Conservation Officer considers that when combined with the excessive mass of the building would detract from its surroundings.

Bearing in mind the Conservation Officers response, there is a strong case for the building to be reduced in size and re-designed. However, it is the Planning Officers recommendation to Committee Members that on balance the proposal will comply with the Council’s policies regarding design for the reasons below.

The building is designed by Architects in a bespoke fashion to meet the needs and requirements of the Applicant. In a area where there are a mix of houses in terms of styles, sizes and type, there is no predominance in character which prescribes that a particular type, style or size should be adopted. The site itself can not be seen from any public vantage points and is completely isolated. The building height is low and the massing is considered to be broken up into several blocks. The general Lostock area is particularly leafy with large gardens around houses. Some houses in Lostock extend the full width of their

117 land, with gardens behind them in a similar fashion to the proposed dwelling. The proposed large house is considered to be compatible with its surroundings.

Furthermore, in a recent case at Wendover, Windy Harbour Lane the Planning Inspector determined that for a house to be incompatible with the locality, the property by virtue of its poor design must be harmful to the area. It is not considered that the proposed large house by virtue of its design would be harmful to the area, even if it could be seen from outside the site.

Therefore, it is considered on balance that the proposed house complies with policy D2 of the UDP.

Impact on the Site of Biological Importance Council policy N3 states that the Council will not permit development or land use changes likely to have an adverse effect either directly or indirectly, on a Local Nature Reserve or a Site Biological Importance as shown on the Proposals Map, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there are reasons for the proposal which outweigh the need to safeguard the substantive nature conservation value of the site.

The Applicant has submitted a detailed Wildlife report which makes reference to Birds, Bats, Great Crested Newts and Badgers. The application site extends into Old Hall Clough Grade C Site of Biological Importance (SBI). Part of the woodland will be affected by the development but it is considered that the careful management of the woodland through a Woodland Management Plan will improve and maintain the woodland for years to come.

The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit have recommended that conditions are imposed on the consent to secure a further assessment of bats prior to removing trees and a detailed survey is submitted regarding the woodland management. Further conditions including, no vegetation clearance in the bird breeding season, and that lighting shall not be directed into the woodland area.

Further information has been received regarding Great Crested Newts (GCN). Results of a survey have been submitted from March – May 2008 which identify all closest ponds to the site within a 500m radius of the site. None of the ponds were found to inhabit great crested newts. Other amphibians were found such as common toad, smooth newts and common frogs. The report recommends that no further action is necessary. The Council's Wildlife Officer has confirmed this action.

The Environment Agency have responded with a standard comment relating to no development within 8 metres from the top of the bank. The distance to the Bessy Brook is over 25 metres from the proposed building line and is elevated by approximately 20 metres. It is considered that natural flow of the Besy Brook will not rise 20 metres and will therefore not cause any impacts to the develoopment. A condition relating to surface water run off is recommended.

The proposal is considered to comply with Council policy N3.

118 Impact on the Highway Network A5. In assessing development proposals, the Council will permit those that have taken into account provision for:

(ii) pedestrians and cyclists;

(iii) road design, layout and construction;

(iv) vehicle servicing and access arrangements;

(v) car, cycle and motor-cycle parking; and

(vi) access to, and by, public transport

Development proposals should not adversely affect the safety of highway users, including pedestrians, as well as the safe and efficient circulation of vehicles

The Council's Highway Engineer recommends that High Bank Lane is widened from the passing area to Chorley New Road. This is considered excessive for one dwelling, furthermore, the application could be considered a replacement dwelling whereby the impact is no greater. However, a condition for a passing place oin the private road is recommended by condition. This condition was a requirement on the previous approval for three dwellings.

Value Added to and by the Development The large house represents a large investment in the Borough. Bolton is a diverse Borough and this type of large house creates a further type of house available within Bolton.

The Applicant has agreed to provide renewable energy sources that contribute a minimum of 10% of the total energy consumption for the building. This will be secured by condition.

Conclusion In summary, the two main issues for Members to consider are:

(vii) The appropriateness of the design, which is on balance considered to be acceptable due to the location being isolated and that the design does not cause harm to the area. (viii) The removal of 7 trees and the impact on the woodland trees. However, the Council's Tree Officer, Wildlife Officer and Greater Manchester Ecology Unit consider these matters can be successfully mitigated by the imposition of planning conditions. Furthermore, all trees to be removed will be replaced.

The proposed large dwelling is considered to be compliant with the Council's policies and is recommended for approval.

Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions

Recommended Conditions and/or Reasons

119

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

Reason

Required to be imposed pursuant to section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. No development shall be commenced until samples of the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof(s) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

To ensure the development either fits in visually with the existing buildings in the locality and safeguards the character and visual appearance of the locality or ensures the development safeguards the character and visual appearance of the locality.

3. All new window frames to the building(s) shall be recessed a minimum of 0.07 metres behind the external face of the elevations of the development hereby approved.

Reason

In the interest of creating architectural depth and shading to the elevations.

4. No development shall be commenced unless and until a detailed scheme showing the design, location and size of a bin store has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and such works that form the approved scheme shall be completed before the development is brought into use, and retained thereafter.

Reason

To ensure the development safeguards the character and visual appearance of the locality and the living conditions of nearby residents.

5. Before development commences details of all external lighting equipment shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting in the scheme should be erected, directed and shielded so as to avoid nuisance to residential accommodation in close proximity. The lighting should be designed to provide a standard maintained illumination (LUX) as measured at the nearest residential properties affected, of between 5 and 20 LUX with the lower level being the preferable one. No other lighting equipment may then be used within the development other than as approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

To safeguard the amenity and character of the area and to safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents.

6. No development shall be commenced until full details of existing and proposed ground levels within the site and on land adjoining the site by means of spot heights and cross-sections; proposed siting and finished floor levels of all buildings and structures, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved level details.

Reason

To ensure the development safeguards the character and visual appearance of the locality and to

120 safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents particularly with regard to privacy and outlook.

7. The development hereby approved/permitted shall not be brought into use until the means of vehicular access from High Bank Lane has been constructed and laid out entirely in accordance with details which include a lay by which will have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

In the interests of highway safety.

8. The development hereby approved/permitted shall not be brought into use unless and until that part of the site to be used by vehicles has been laid out, drained and surfaced in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be made available for the parking of cars at all times the premises are in use.

Reason

To encourage drivers to make use of the parking and circulation area(s) provided.

9. No development shall be started until the trees within or overhanging the site which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order have been surrounded by fences of a type to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The approved fencing shall extend to the extreme circumference of the spread of the branches of the trees (in accordance with BS 5839) or as may otherwise be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority; such fences shall remain until all development is completed.

Reason

In order to avoid damage to tree(s) within the site which are of important amenity value to the area.

10. No development shall be started until a minimum of 14 days notice in writing has been given to the Local Planning Authority that the protective fencing referred to in Condition 10 has been erected.

Reason

In order that the Local Planning Authority can inspect the protective fencing with a view to to avoiding damage to tree(s)/shrub(s)/hedgerow(s) within the site which are of important amenity value to the area.

11. Within 12 months of the 7 trees being felled (G4/3, G4/2, 5 x G6 trees not including G6/1) 7 suitable replacement trees of size and species to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority shall be planted in a location to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees which die or are removed within 5 years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason

To maintain the setting of the development within the landscape of the surrounding locality.

12. Other than the 7 trees (within G6 and G4 on CW/5568-P4 rev-a) shown for removal, no other works to trees shall be carried out unless a Tree Protection Order Application is submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration and authorisation.

Reason

In the interests of good arboricultural practice.

121 13. Before development commences details of the treatment to all boundaries to the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details as are approved shall be implemented in full before the development is first occupied or brought into use and retained thereafter.

Reason

To ensure adequate standards of privacy are obtained and to enhance the setting of the development within the landscape character of the locality.

14. Before development commences a method statement for the 5 metre wide temporary access track shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The track shall thereafter be laid out in accordance with the approved details/scheme.

Reason

In the interest of minimising impacts on protected trees

15. No development shall take place unless and until a programme plan showing the phases by which the site will be developed has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The phasing plan shall include:

A phased and detailed management plan for future management works within the sites woodlands and tree groups, and that all tree works should form part off an approved scheme. A phasing plan for the use of the temporary access road and the access through the building. A phasing plan for the remainder of the exterior works including surfacing, landscaping and the erection of any boundary treatments

The agreed phasing of development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason

To ensure the satisfactory development of the site.

16. Prior to the removal of any trees on the site, the developer shall apoint a suitably qualified ecologist to undertake a survey of the trees to establish whether or not any bats, owls or other birds are present. Where species or their habitat are found to be present, a mitigation report shall be prepared and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. No development or site clearance shall take place until the Local Planning Authority has agreed the mitigation measures in writing, and these measures shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason

To protect the interests of any bats, owls or other birds, which may be present on the site.

17. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until an enrichment planting within W1 (as shown on M1567.01B) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall be carried out in accordance with a programme for planting and maintenance related to stages of completion of the development which shall have been submitted with the planting scheme and be retained thereafter.

Reason

To protect, restore or replace the natural features of importance

18. No removal of trees or vegetation shall take place between the bird breeding season (March to July inclusive).

122

Reason: In the interest of breeding birds

19. Before development commences a comprehensive woodland management plan be prepared and submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority, based on the woodland management proposals put forward in the arboricultural report and in drawings M1567.01B and M1567.02 (Barnes Walker). Once approved, the management plan should be implemented in full within a period of three years following the first occupation of the development.

Reason: In the interest of the SBI

20. Before the development is brought into use, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority showing the erection of bird and bat boxes onto trees. The approved scheme shall be carried out in full prior to the first occupation of the dwelling and retained thereafter.

Reason:

In the interest of birds and bats

21. Phase II Report Should the approved Phase I Report recommend that a Phase II Report is required, then prior to commencement of any site investigation works, design of the Phase II site investigation shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Site investigations shall be carried out in accordance with the approved design and a Phase II Report shall then be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. The Phase II Report shall include the site investigation data, generic quantitative risk assessment, detailed quantitative risk assessment (if required) and recommendations regarding the need or otherwise for remediation. Should the Phase I Report recommend that a Phase II Report is not required, but during construction and prior to completion of the development hereby approved, contamination or gas migration is found or suspected, the developer shall contact the Local Planning Authority immediately and submit proposals for investigation and remediation of the contamination or gas migration within seven days from the date that it is found or suspected to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. Options Appraisal Should the Phase II Report recommend that remediation of the site is required then unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, no development shall commence unless or until an Options Appraisal has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The Options Appraisal shall include identification of feasible remediation options, evaluation of options and identification of an appropriate Remediation Strategy. Implementation of Remediation Strategy No development shall commence, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, until the following information relating to the approved Remediation Strategy has been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority: 1. Detailed remediation design, drawings and specification; 2. Phasing and timescales of remediation; i) Verification Plan which should include sampling and testing criteria, and other records to be retained that will demonstrate that remediation objectives will be met; and ii) Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (if appropriate). This should include a protocol for long term monitoring, and response mechanisms in the event of non compliant monitoring results. The approved Remediation Strategy shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved

123

124 phasing and timescales and the following reports shall then be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing: iii) A Verification Report which should include a record of all remediation activities, and data collected to demonstrate that the remediation objectives have been met; and iv) A Monitoring and Maintenance Report (if appropriate). This should include monitoring data and reports, and maintenance records and reports to demonstrate that long term monitoring and maintenance objectives have been met. Reason

To ensure that the development is safe for use.

22. Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A to Schedule 2 Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (or any Order amending or replacing that Order) no fences, gates, walls shall be erected within the curtilage of the approved dwelling house other than those expressly authorised by this permission.

Reason

The erection of boundaries and new fences and walls close to trees could be detrimental and therefore requires a further consent.

23. Before the development is brought into use, a scheme to install micro renewable energy equipment at the site, which generate 10% of the total energy consumption of the building shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwelling and retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:

In the interest of providing a Sustainable Development

24. Before the development is brought in use, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority which minimises the risk for surface water run off. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to thje first occupation of the dwelling and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of saving water and preventing pollution of other water courses

125 126 127 128 129

130 131 132 Date of Meeting: 07 August 2008 Item Number: 11

Application Reference: 80469/08

Type of Application: Full Planning Application Registration Date: 01/07/2008 Decision Due By: 26/08/2008 Responsible Jodie Turton Officer:

Location: LAND AT SALFORD ROAD WEST, BOLTON

Proposal: FORMATION OF ACCESS ROAD TO SERVICE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

Ward: Hulton

Applicant: Mr M James Agent : Steven Abbott Associates

Officers Report

Proposal This application is a resubmission of application 79653/08. The proposal is for the formation of a junction off the A6, Salford Road West. It is the applicant’s intention to obtain permission as a matter of principle to serve any future development of the site to the rear which is an allocated Employment Site (E2 in the UDP) and forms part of the wider Cutacre development site.

Site Characteristics The site subject of this application extends along a stretch of Salford Road, opposite Brackley Cottages and Gilded Hollins. Salford Road provides a main transport link between Bolton and Salford.

Immediately to the west is a site in industrial use. Further to the west is an area of land which forms part of Cutacre Tip, subject to opencast coal mining and some deep mining operations, the spoil now comprises Cutacre Tip. Outline consent has been granted for the site to the south and west for the erection of industrial buildings of classes B1, B2 and B8 (68465/04). Although this consent cannot be implemented due to a condition requiring a reserved matters application to be submitted within three years of the date of the permission, this period has now expired.

Residential properties immediately face the site at Brackley Cottages and Gilded Hollins, whilst Brackley Villas is on the other side of the railway cutting. Once into the Borough of Salford City Council there is a steep rise in the number of residential properties and local amenities with properties fronting onto Salford Road.

133 A bus stop is present in the vicinity of the proposed access; this serves links between Bolton town centre, Atherton, Walkden, Hindley and Leigh at a reasonable frequency.

Policy National Planning Policy PPG13 Transport

Regional Spatial Strategy Draft RSS 'The North West Plan'

Unitary Development Plan Policies: A1 Accessibility; A5 Roads, Paths, Car Parking and Servicing; A1 Traffic Management and Calming; A1 Pedestrians; A1 Road Network; A20 Implementation; E2 Employment Allocation; N7 Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows; N9 Protected Species.

PCPN21 Highway Considerations

History Planning permission was refused by the Planning and Highways Committee on 29 May 2008 for an identical application, for the formation of an access road to service future development (79653/08). This is now subject to an Appeal by the applicant which will be heard at a Public Inquiry.

An outline planning application was withdrawn in December 2007 for the erection of employment buildings (Class B1, B2 and B8), seeking access details only. This application included land to the south of the current application site (78494/07).

Outline planning permission was approved on land to the west / south west of the application site at Cutacre tip for the erection of industrial buildings (Classes B1, B2 and B8) in March 1998 (49527/96). Subsequently, the applicant, UK Coal Ltd submitted a further planning application (68465/04) to extend the submission deadline of a reserved matters for a further three years to 2007, which was approved in October 2004. However, this permission has now lapsed.

In July 2001 planning permission was granted on appeal following a Public Inquiry and Secretary of State intervention. The approval related to the extraction of 900,000 tonnes of coal by opencast methods over a 3 year period and recovery of 850,000 tonnes by tip washing over a 4 year period with restoration to community forest, nature conservation and agriculture over an extended 10 year period on land extending to 322 hectares (234 hectares within Bolton) (48800/96).

Technical Consultations Bolton Council - Highway Engineers:- raise no objections, stating that: "the Transport Assessment submitted by the Applicant shows that the proposed junction onto the A6 would have adequate capacity to accommodate the traffic likely to be generated by the future development of the site. The Transport Assessment also shows that the traffic likely to be generated by the future development of the site will have no material impact on the local

134 highway network. In addition, the highway layout shown on drawing number 2007- 045/SK003 Rev G meets the highway design standards required by the Council.

Bolton Council - Wildlife Liaison Officers:- provision of the junction, together with visibility splays will result in the removal of 101 metres of mature hedgerow, this is a habitat feature identified within Bolton's Biodiversity Action Plan. The provision of a new hedgerow within the locality to mitigate for the losses would negate biodiversity loss. The applicant should note that its removal has the potential to disturb or destroy breeding birds, their nests and eggs which are protected. The timing of the removal should be between August and March.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit:- The proposal will result in the loss of a section of mature hedgerow, it is therefore recommended that the hedgerow removal is kept to a minimum and any removal is carried out outside of the optimum period for bird nesting (March to July inclusive). Furthermore, given the ecological sensitivity of the land to the rear of the application site, it is recommended that all works are carried out from the highway and not from the field behind and no plant or machinery should be stored in, or operated on, the field. If this cannot be achieved then an ecological survey should be provided (including a great crested newt survey).

United Utilities:- raise no objections, however state that the Aqueduct is laid across/adjacent to the site of the proposed development. The Applicant must comply with UU's standard conditions for work carried out on, or when crossing, aqueducts and easements.

Representations Letters:- one letter of objection has been received from 424 Manchester Road West, Little Hulton, raising the following concerns: ii) Concerns over the speed of vehicles that travel along this stretch of Salford Road, despite the speed restrictions, and the impact of this on HGVs turning into and out of the site. iii) The loss of hedgerow and habitat for newts and other wildlife.

Other concerns raised which are not material to the consideration of this application: • Concerns over the proposed future landuse (which does not form part of the application site) • Within 1 km of the application site there are a number of industrial units lying empty.

Applications which are not in accordance with Development Plan policies should be refused unless material considerations justify granting permission.

Similarly, proposals which accord with Development Plan policies should be approved unless there are material considerations which would justify a refusal of permission.

135

It is therefore necessary to decide whether this proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and then take account of other material considerations.

The main impacts of the proposal are:-

* impact on the transport network * impact on wildlife and hedgerows

Impact on the Transport Network UDP policy A5 seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely affect the safety of highway users, including pedestrians, as well as the safe and efficient circulation of vehicles.

The proposal subject of this application relates exclusively to the operational development associated with the formation of an access/junction (and associated highway works within the existing highway). The applicant has stated that the proposed junction would serve the site to the rear (south) which is part of an allocated employment development site. The application does not however, seek permission for any employment/industrial development and is solely for the principle of operational development of a vehicular access from Salford Road.

A ghost island T junction is proposed, which would provide a dedicated right turn lane for traffic travelling on the A6. The existing cycle lanes would be maintained along Salford Road, which would preserve the opportunity for the cycle network, and thus comply with UDP policies A1 and A17.

In assessing the principle of the access point the site is on a main thoroughfare which provides links to an existing road network reaching into the local and Greater Manchester area. The site is within easy reach of junction 4 of the M61 which links with M6, M60, M62 and routes beyond; this is a positive element of the proposal.

Salford Road is currently served by bus routes, although not as frequent as in some areas of the Borough, the potential is for an improved service in forthcoming years; the bus stop immediately outside the site is to be maintained. The footway is also to be preserved and two pedestrian crossing are proposed, one to the north, the other to the south of the access. Both are considered to be appropriate. The proposal therefore meets policy requirements set out in UDP policy A1.

The applicant has undertaken a Transport Assessment to demonstrate the scheme's viability and potential impacts on the highway network in the immediate and surrounding area. The Transport Assessment (as submitted with application 79653/08) was assessed by GMGU and GMUTC and they have confirmed that this is acceptable and raise no objections to the proposed junction. The Council's Highway Engineers have also assessed the proposal and consider this acceptable.

Impact on Wildlife and Hedgerows

136 UDP policy N7 seeks to ensure that development proposals do not lead to the loss of hedgerows of visual, historic or amenity value, whilst seeking to protect biodiversity. UDP policy N9 states that development will not be permitted that would be liable to adversely affect a protected or other rare species or its habitat, unless any impact can be successfully mitigated.

The proposal would result in the loss of a section of mature hedgerow, which provides an effective screen along Salford Road and is also of biodiversity interest. The Council's Wildlife Liaison Officer and GMEU recommend that a new hedge is planted to mitigate for the loss of the existing one and to ensure that any removal is carried out outside of the optimum period for bird nesting (March to July inclusive), this will be a recommended condition of planning permission.

A pond is sited approximately 10 metres from the highway and approximately 5 metres from the application site. GMEU have recommended that a full ecological survey is submitted, including a great crested newt survey. This will be a condition of planning permission.

Conclusion The application proposes the creation of a access/junction off the A6 (Salford Road). The Council's Highway Engineers, GMTU and GMUTC have assessed the proposal and the junction is considered acceptable in highway terms. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with policy and is therefore recommended for approval.

Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions

Recommended Conditions and/or Reasons

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

Reason

Required to be imposed pursuant to section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby approved/permitted shall not be brought into use unless and until a visibility splay measuring 2.4 metres by 120 metres is provided at the junction of the site access road with Salford Road, and subsequently maintained free of all obstructions between the height of 1.05 metres and 2 metres (as measured above carriageway level).

Reason

To ensure traffic leaving the site has adequate visibility onto the highway.

3. Prior to commencement of development an ecological survey, including a great crested newt survey, should be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The survey should include a method statement providing details of how any ecological damage is to be mitigated. The survey should be implemented in full and in accordance with the approved details prior to any work commencing.

Reason

137

138 To mitigate for any ecological damage as a result of the development.

4. There shall be no removal of the hedgerow within the bird breeding season (March to July inclusive).

Reason To protect nesting birds which may be present.

139

140 141 142 Date of Meeting: 07 August 2008 Item Number: 12

Application Reference: 80194/08

Type of Application: Full Planning Application Registration Date: 03/06/2008 Decision Due By: 29/07/2008 Responsible Andrew McGlone Officer:

Location: WINGATES NURSING HOME, 95 CHORLEY ROAD, WESTHOUGHTON, BOLTON, BL5 3PG

Proposal: EXTENSION TO CAR PARK

Ward: Westhoughton North

Applicant: Mr Khan Agent : Equilibrium Architects Limited

Officers Report

Proposal Permission is sought to extend the existing car park behind the rear of 99 Chorley Road and 5 Wingates Grove. The land was formerly the garden curtilage of 99 Chorley Road. The applicant seeks to provide an extra two spaces on top of the extra provision created in application 78979/07. This brings the total provision to eleven spaces, three of which would be for persons with disabilities. In application 78979/07 car parking provision was intended next to the rear extension, however this is unable to be provided due to a requirement to provide an additional seating area for residents.

Site Characteristics The nursing home fronts onto Chorley Road and the surrounding area is predominantly residential, as can be seen on the site plan attached to this agenda item.

There are a number of trees on the site and several were authorised for removal as part of the earlier approval subject to replacement as part of an overall landscape scheme.

The applicant has ownership of 97 and 99 Chorley Road, both are used by staff of the nursing home.

Policy UDP Policy A5 Roads, Paths, Car Parking and Servicing; A6 Car Parking Standards; D2 Design; N7 Trees and Woodlands; N8 Protected Trees

Appendix 7 Car Parking Standards

143 PCPN7 Trees; PCPN10 Crime; PCPN12 Residential and Nursing Homes for the Elderly

History Application 78979/07 was granted for a two storey rear extension to provide thirteen additional en-suite bedrooms, as well as a smaller extension at the front to provide additional day space for residents. Parking provision was increased by two and the layout re-arranged to ensure a safer orientation of vehicles; this part of the proposal included utilising part of the garden curtilage of 97 Chorley Road.

Technical Consultations Bolton Council – Highways Engineer – the access shall be widened to 5 metres at the inner tangent and have 3 metre radii. The substantial brick pillows at the entrance shall be removed to improve visibility.

Bolton Council – Tree and Woodland Officer – it would appear that the extension to the car park has been built. Any changes that resulted in further encroachment onto the trees would not be acceptable. The car parking area as shown on the original plan is not the same as shown and there has been encroachment of hard surface adjacent to plot 11 towards the protected Sycamore tree. It is likely that this will be to the detriment of the tree. There is a hatched area shown on plan for the revised sitting area for residents. This should be grass rather than tarmac as the use of hard surfacing may result in the loss of the two protected trees. It is noted that there is still a paved area to the front of the building where new landscaping is proposed. This landscaping was to compensate for tree loss and the loss of further trees is not supported.

Bolton Council – Pollution Control Unit – no objections to the application in principle. However, if minded to accept this application would recommend the inclusion of two conditions.

Representations Letters – one letter has been received which raises no objections to the car park, however they do have concerns about the height of the fence along the rear aspect of their garden, especially given that a raised bed has been created making it easier for people to access the rear gardens.

Town Council –raise objection to the proposal based on highway safety issues; it is felt that the visibility splay onto Chorley Road is not acceptable.

Applications which are not in accordance with Development Plan policies should be refused unless material considerations justify granting permission.

Similarly, proposals which accord with Development Plan policies should be approved unless there are material considerations which would justify a refusal of permission.

144

It is therefore necessary to decide whether this proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and then take account of other material considerations.

The main impacts of the proposal are:-

* impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area * impact on Highway Safety * impact on the Trees

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area The extension of the car park to the rear of existing dwellings is very limited and it is considered that as such will not unduly affect the visual character of the area nor the existing living conditions of the adjacent dwellings.

The applicant proposes improvements to the current boundary treatment, ensuring all adjoining neighbours have adequate privacy and security, in particularly around the raised beds in the south western corner of the parking area. Details are requested through a planning condition. the proposal is considered to comply with policies D1 and D2 of the UDP. Impact on Highway Safety Highways Engineers request the access is widened to 5 metres and a 3 metre radii is constructed. The applicant is to amend the scheme to improve the visibility splay at Chorley Road. details of any amendments will be reported separately via the Supplementary Information Sheet. By providing additional spaces it would ensure there is a reduced pressure for vehicles to be parked in the surrounding locality and subject to the above improvements, the proposals do not conflict with the relevant highway policies of the UDP in respect of visibility and safety. Impact on the Trees Small landscaped areas have been removed; however numerous tree remain along the western boundary. A landscape plan was a requirement of application 78979/07 to ensure comprehensive landscaping and mitigation for the loss of landscaping throughout the site. This condition should still apply and be inclusive of the new area.

The new seating area would soften the appearance of the site, although it should not be to the detriment of the two existing trees. The T&WO recommends this area should be made up of grass and not hard surfaced.

The proposal complies with policy N7.

Conclusion Members are recommended to approve the application subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions

Recommended Conditions and/or Reasons

145

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

Reason

Required to be imposed pursuant to section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby approved/permitted shall not be brought into use unless and until not less than 11 car parking spaces have been marked out and provided within the curtilage of the site, in accordance with the approved/submitted details. Such spaces shall be made available for the parking of cars at all times the premises are in use.

Reason

To ensure that adequate provision is made for vehicles to be left clear of the highway.

3. Trees and shrubs shall be planted on the site in accordance with the submitted/approved landscape scheme. Such scheme shall be carried out within 6 months of the occupation of any of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, or in accordance with phasing details included as part of the scheme and subsequently approved by the Local Planning Authority; any trees and shrubs that die or are removed within five years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Reason

To soften the development proposed and to enhance and improve the setting of the development within the landscape of the surrounding locality.

4. The development hereby approved/permitted shall not be brought into use unless and until a 2.5 metre high acoustic timber fence has been erected along the boundaries of the car park and residential properties at 97, 99 and 101 Chorley Road as well as 5, 7 and 9 Wingates Grove and thereafter the boundary fence shall be retained in the approved position.

Reason

To ensure adequate standards of privacy are obtained.

Reason

To encourage drivers to make use of the parking and circulation area(s) provided.

146 147